Feminism...

Anon

Jeanie wrote:

Things would be so much easier if I just had a penis.

Tis a great failing of mine not to have been born with one.

Women would swoon when I spoke, mechanics would never try to scam me, nobody would care what I wore and I could fuck as many people as I liked and wouldn't have to pretend to be pure. I could be virile and spreading my seed and applauded for my efforts and because I have a dick everything I say would be more valid than anything that anyone with a vagina might have to say.

Yeah, I need a penis. Life is so much easier when you have a penis.

Hehe no way!!!!!
Think of it this way....

When we buy a vibrator it is glamorous. When men buy a blow up doll
it's sad...

We don't have to get our strength up between sessions and it's
much easier for us to get laid in the first place.....

We never ejaculate prematurely....

We can scare male bosses with mysterious gynecological disorder
excuses....

Our boyfriends' clothes make us look elfin and gorgeous? They
look like complete dicks in ours.....

It's cool to be a daddy's girl. It's sad to be a mommy's boy....

We have no desire to arrange our possessions in alphabetical
order. Ever.....

Ohhh the list is endless

Collin

decides2dream wrote:

now, now...no need to get cranky.......;)
sorry collin, but i think at times the language used, might've seemed dismissive/accusatory? perhaps that's more inference than intent, but it can also be said that most feminists ARE used to be greeted with such when discussing feminism. i DO think if your first post was a bit more defined, might've better guided the discussion. and of course there ARE many who support the issues you brought up, even if you or i or others might see them in a different perspective. they'd not have occurred without pressure and support eh? anyhoo....i really wouldn't imagine you'd get many 'answers' there....b/c i don't think too many feminists in general are as about, nor the ones who ARE around here, don't support many of the same issues you take issue with. well, except maybe for the tennis thing.

I have no problem admitting that the language was dismissive and accusatory. But I think I made it clear I was talking about a fraction of the feminist movement. If it wasn't clear so be it...

Like I said, I should have explained my intent more accurately. I apparently didn't.

btw - it is kinda sad , your last sentence. no interest in discussing where and how and why feminism might still be needed in the world? i still think it's very much needed right here at home! obviously, elsewhere....the 'bigger purposes' of feminism is needed a lot more, but i don't know if in these varying countries if women themselves want the changes or not.....it does need to be a choice.

I'm still interested in it. I'm not interested in debating it here...

hey, if we all followed along your first post....at least 50% of the posts would not have occurred, given your caveat of 'no women allowed.'

Exactly! What the fuck are you all doing here? Can't you read?

Women :rolleyes:

Collin

scb wrote:

No hard feelings, Collin. As an olive branch, I'll send you a gift. How about a nice "This is what a feminist looks like" t-shirt?

Great... I lost my NO MA'AM t-shirt recently and my Stand Up Against the Feminist Hate Group t-shirt is too small!

Collin

OutOfBreath wrote:

And Collin, given your post of bold letters, I dont quite get what you're going on about here. You lash out against feminists in some posts, and then makes the complete turn-around in others. Perhaps just bad wording, I dunno.

Feminism is not a uniform group, Dan. Here's some information on feminism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism . You should definitely look into it. You'll see that are many different branches of feminism and you'll see that some feminists have very opposing ideas... Once you understand this it might be easier to understand how a person can deliver criticism on feminists yet support many feminists as well. Indeed in some posts I lash out against feminists and in other posts I don't.

Here are some of my posts. This time I put other words in bold to illustrate what I meant:

"I am not talking about all feminists, I acknowledge that there are feminists who are not hypocritical or don't support injustice.

Like I said, there's a distinction to be made, perhaps the rather ridiculous term feminazism is suitable here.

I think it's these feminists who overshadow the "real" feminists, whom I mentioned in my first post.

I wished to discuss the groups of feminism, which I thought were detrimental to the feminist movement. I also believe these, whether a minority or not, have a great influence.

I'm merely pointing out the injustices of certain feminists in the Western world."

I thought it was clear that I was talking about a specific group, or specific groups. Apparently to most people it's not. If I didn't state my intentions or expectations clearly or accurately, so be it... but I do think I've made a distinction between different feminists. I really don't have the time to repeatedly explain that I definitely see a distinction between feminists. I thought I did by giving a number of quotes in which I thought I showed I knew the difference and was talking about specific groups. But it appears even that is not enough. It's still not clear so I've come to the conclusion that I'm just not an eloquent and effective writer, which is a total bummer (d2d and Angelica will definitely know why).

So, you're right; it was bad wording and I'll work on this problem. Once I find out how to get my points across accurately, I might give this another try.

1. I dont think discrimination against men is any better than discrimination against women. However, I am aware that there are discriminations made against both, but it is quite clear in which direction the most and heaviest obstacles are leaning. Which is why I dont get much worked up about very minor female "advantages", when there still are several pretty major male "advantages". Harping on such points is usually what anti-feminists do, so I think much of the flak you get from me and others here are based in that you use the same arguments the "bad guys" do.

I guess you can call me a bad guy then. I never thought that pointing out blatant injustice against a gender group would make me a bad guy. Especially not in the eyes of groups who fight for gender equality.

It's of course your every right to dismiss these issues as unimportant or minor... I disagree.

2. As for affirmative action I lean somewhat in it's favour for the time being. If things improve, I will be against it at a later time. I dont favour strong measures here though, more in the vein "other qualifications being equal" sort of thing. And it should be applied both ways. I know men are given advantages in getting into various health-related educations here in Norway, because they are so girl-dominated. And the girls get an edge in the sciences. This doesn't really bother me. As long as it goes both ways.

Peace
Dan

I'm against affirmative action. It is somewhat more fair when it goes both ways, however, I "harped on" about an example in which this was definitely not the case. But nevermind, it was an obscure, minor and unimportant issue, anyway.

Collin

Jeanie wrote:

Things would be so much easier if I just had a penis.

Tis a great failing of mine not to have been born with one.

Women would swoon when I spoke, mechanics would never try to scam me, nobody would care what I wore and I could fuck as many people as I liked and wouldn't have to pretend to be pure. I could be virile and spreading my seed and applauded for my efforts and because I have a dick everything I say would be more valid than anything that anyone with a vagina might have to say.

Yeah, I need a penis. Life is so much easier when you have a penis.

You need a penis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_reassignment_therapy

Go for it!

OutOfBreath

Collin wrote:

Feminism is not a uniform group, Dan. Here's some information on feminism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism . You should definitely look into it. You'll see that are many different branches of feminism and you'll see that some feminists have very opposing ideas... Once you understand this it might be easier to understand how a person can deliver criticism on feminists yet support many feminists as well. Indeed in some posts I lash out against feminists and in other posts I don't.

Here are some of my posts. This time I put other words in bold to illustrate what I meant:

"I am not talking about all feminists, I acknowledge that there are feminists who are not hypocritical or don't support injustice.

Like I said, there's a distinction to be made, perhaps the rather ridiculous term feminazism is suitable here.

I think it's these feminists who overshadow the "real" feminists, whom I mentioned in my first post.

I wished to discuss the groups of feminism, which I thought were detrimental to the feminist movement. I also believe these, whether a minority or not, have a great influence.

I'm merely pointing out the injustices of certain feminists in the Western world."

I thought it was clear that I was talking about a specific group, or specific groups. Apparently to most people it's not. If I didn't state my intentions or expectations clearly or accurately, so be it... but I do think I've made a distinction between different feminists. I really don't have the time to repeatedly explain that I definitely see a distinction between feminists. I thought I did by giving a number of quotes in which I thought I showed I knew the difference and was talking about specific groups. But it appears even that is not enough. It's still not clear so I've come to the conclusion that I'm just not an eloquent and effective writer, which is a total bummer (d2d and Angelica will definitely know why).

So, you're right; it was bad wording and I'll work on this problem. Once I find out how to get my points across accurately, I might give this another try.

I am very aware about different feminisms. The unclarity comes when you specify, as here, that you are after a specific part of the movement, but then later consistently just talk about the "feminists" again. Perhaps you should just find a term that makes it clear what you're talking about. I think you're more about "feminazis" and the over-the-top pc-crowd, and you should make that clear by not using "feminists" with no disclaimers when talking about them.

I guess you can call me a bad guy then. I never thought that pointing out blatant injustice against a gender group would make me a bad guy. Especially not in the eyes of groups who fight for gender equality.

It's of course your every right to dismiss these issues as unimportant or minor... I disagree.

The point is that the favorite tactic of male chauvinists, are finding those minor instances that favour women and only talk about them, ignoring the bigger issues where men are favoured. I am not saying you do that, or that you are a male chauvinist, but that is an impression you can make when you harp on minor issues such as women tennis. Thus you get an instant amount of ill-will from many here. That is our problem I guess, but i think you start off on the wrong foot with many because of it.

You're not a bad guy to point out injustices as you see them.

I'm against affirmative action. It is somewhat more fair when it goes both ways, however, I "harped on" about an example in which this was definitely not the case. But nevermind, it was an obscure, minor and unimportant issue, anyway.

That it was, and may be why you dont get much enthusiasm out of people for it. But there I also disagreed with the premise that men do more, and hence should have more of a reward, and that sports in general are a lousy example for anything relating to gender equality, really.

I dont think I really disagree that much with you, but we may perhaps disagree on what is important or not.

Peace
Dan

catefrances

Pj_Gurl wrote:

We have no desire to arrange our possessions in alphabetical
order. Ever.....

umm... i alphabetise my music collection. i have to, otherwise i wouldnt be able to find anything except ryan adams and the zutons.



so glad im not a feminist.

Collin

OutOfBreath wrote:

I am very aware about different feminisms. The unclarity comes when you specify, as here, that you are after a specific part of the movement, but then later consistently just talk about the "feminists" again. Perhaps you should just find a term that makes it clear what you're talking about. I think you're more about "feminazis" and the over-the-top pc-crowd, and you should make that clear by not using "feminists" with no disclaimers when talking about them.

I mentioned the term feminazis, immediately two people explained to me that feminazism is not the same as feminism. How it's different and how it's disrespectful :rolleys: Even after I said I thought the term was ridiculous.

People read what they want to read. If I had used feminazi instead, people who have come into this thread and started babbling and raving and bitching about that.

Anyway, I've used many disclaimers, I even said in the very first post that there's a difference... Granted, I didn't use the every time I used the word feminism... but like I said, I thought it was clear who I was talking about because of the numerous posts in which I specified who I was talking about.

I don't see the other people using disclaimers to indicate which feminists they are talking about. So it goes both ways.

The point is that the favorite tactic of male chauvinists, are finding those minor instances that favour women and only talk about them, ignoring the bigger issues where men are favoured. I am not saying you do that, or that you are a male chauvinist, but that is an impression you can make when you harp on minor issues such as women tennis. Thus you get an instant amount of ill-will from many here. That is our problem I guess, but i think you start off on the wrong foot with many because of it.

Well, it's only an impression I make when you choose to ignore my other posts in which I explicitly say I'm not against all feminists, I support several feminist aspects, I realise feminism is needed in the world.

If anyone here has the impression I'm a male chauvinist they either ignored my posts or chose not to believe me.

That it was, and may be why you dont get much enthusiasm out of people for it. But there I also disagreed with the premise that men do more, and hence should have more of a reward, and that sports in general are a lousy example for anything relating to gender equality, really.

I was not referring to the tennis issue.

Collin

OutOfBreath wrote:

I dont think I really disagree that much with you, but we may perhaps disagree on what is important or not.

Do you believe systematical injustice is wrong? Do you believe it's important to correct unjust systems?

My guess is you do. But you seem to ignore those unjust systems when they affect men, because men still have more advantages in life.

catefrances

Collin wrote:

Do you believe systematical injustice is wrong? Do you believe it's important to correct unjust systems?

My guess is you do. But you seem to ignore those unjust systems when they affect men, because men still have more advantages in life.

unjust systems that affect men? such as? im just asking, not disagreeing.

decides2dream

i soooo wanted to post the lyrics to that great 80s tune "detachable penis" ...but when i googled for the lyrics, my firm blocked access and i got our big-brother internet warning.




btw - i alphabetize EVERYthing as well.....i am a ridiculously organized, OCD woman.

smithnic

Susan Faludi ~ Backlash

_

OutOfBreath wrote:

I am very aware about different feminisms. The unclarity comes when you specify, as here, that you are after a specific part of the movement, but then later consistently just talk about the "feminists" again. Perhaps you should just find a term that makes it clear what you're talking about. I think you're more about "feminazis" and the over-the-top pc-crowd, and you should make that clear by not using "feminists" with no disclaimers when talking about them.


The point is that the favorite tactic of male chauvinists, are finding those minor instances that favour women and only talk about them, ignoring the bigger issues where men are favoured. I am not saying you do that, or that you are a male chauvinist, but that is an impression you can make when you harp on minor issues such as women tennis. Thus you get an instant amount of ill-will from many here. That is our problem I guess, but i think you start off on the wrong foot with many because of it.

You're not a bad guy to point out injustices as you see them.

I agree. Thanks for putting it so well.

I wouldn't recommend using the term "feminazi" though. We could have a whole debate just about that.

_

Collin wrote:

If I had used feminazi instead, people who have come into this thread and started babbling and raving and bitching about that.

Look - something we agree on! We could discuss "feminazi" if you want, but it would probably just resemble the thread about the word "bitch".

Collin wrote:

I'm not against all feminists, I support several feminist aspects, I realise feminism is needed in the world.

Maybe we should have a thread about the feminists & feminists aspects you support and why feminism is needed in the world. That would be interesting.

Collin wrote:

But you seem to ignore those unjust systems when they affect men, because men still have more advantages in life.

This almost goes back to that discussion we almost had (in the "bitch" thread?) about the theory that oppression equals prejudice PLUS power. We never actually had that discussion, but it might be another interesting one to have.

_

decides2dream wrote:

i soooo wanted to post the lyrics to that great 80s tune "detachable penis" ...but when i googled for the lyrics, my firm blocked access and i got our big-brother internet warning.

I love that song - but is it really from the '80s? You're making me feel old! Thankfully, my office doesn't have a big-brother internet warning.

Detatchable Penis, by King Missile:

I woke up this morning with a bad hangover
And my penis was missing again.
This happens all the time.
It's detachable.

[ background singing begins:
"detachable penis" over and over ]

This comes in handy a lot of the time.
I can leave it home, when I think
it's gonna get me in trouble,
or I can rent it out, when I don't need it.
But now and then I go to a party, get drunk,
and the next morning I can't for the life of me
remember what I did with it.
First I looked around my apartment, and I couldn't find it.
So I called up the place where the party was,
they hadn't seen it either.
I asked them to check the medicine cabinet
'cause for some reason I leave it there sometimes
But not this time.
So I told them if it pops up to let me know.
I called a few people who were at the party,
but they were no help either.
I was starting to get desperate.
I really don't like being without my penis for too long.
It makes me feel like less of a man,
and I really hate having to sit down
every time I take a leak.
After a few hours of searching the house,
and calling everyone I could think of,
I was starting to get very depressed,
so I went to the Kiev, and ate breakfast.
Then, as I walked down Second Avenue
towards St. Mark's Place,
where all those people sell used books
and other junk on the street,
I saw my penis lying on a blanket
next to a broken toaster oven.
Some guy was selling it.
I had to buy it off him.
He wanted twenty-two bucks, but I
talked him down to seventeen.
I took it home, washed it off,
and put it back on. I was happy again. Complete.
People sometimes tell me I should get
it permanently attached,
but I don't know.
Even though sometimes it's a pain in the ass,
I like having a detachable penis.

[ background voices continue to sing "detachable penis" for
a while, then out ]

Collin

scb wrote:

Look - something we agree on! We could discuss "feminazi" if you want, but it would probably just resemble the thread about the word "bitch".

I think it's a stupid term. The only reason I mentioned it was to somehow make a distinction. I quickly realised that wouldn't be a good idea at all, so I dropped it.

Maybe we should have a thread about the feminists & feminists aspects you support and why feminism is needed in the world. That would be interesting.

I think I'll pass.

This almost goes back to that discussion we almost had (in the "bitch" thread?) about the theory that oppression equals prejudice PLUS power. We never actually had that discussion, but it might be another interesting one to have.

Women aren't powerless. It think that's quite apparent.

Collin

I can think of many small and big examples of men being discriminated against, from hair rules in the military, at schools, offices... to law systems (criminal law, family law...), to claims about domestics violence...

A lot of these things are not big issues at all. At least not to me... but reverse the situation...

VictoryGin

i see validity in this:

THE 2008 CONVENTION:
AMERICANS GATHERING TO CHANGE THE
COURSE OF A NATION

Pay Equity Pioneer Lilly Ledbetter to Address Convention
Tuesday, August 26th

DENVER – The Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) announced today that Lilly Ledbetter, the voice and face of the pay equity fight in this country, will address the Democratic Convention on Tuesday, August 26th.


“We are honored that Lilly Ledbetter will address the Democratic Convention,” said Senator Barack Obama. “The fact that women are paid less than their male coworkers for doing the same job is unacceptable in the 21st century and counter to both the progress we've made and our shared values as Americans. Lilly Ledbetter's case before the Supreme Court has once again awakened the nation to this discrimination, and it's time we join together to right this wrong and pay women equal pay for equal work."


“The theme of Tuesday night’s program is Renewing America’s Promise, and there is no more critical promise that we can keep to American women than to ensure pay equity,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Permanent Chair of the 2008 Convention. “There is a clear difference between the parties when it comes to pay equity, and this election could not be more critical when it comes to garnering support for reversing the Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 decision in the Ledbetter v. Goodyear case. As American women are called upon to do more and more for their families with less and less resources coming in, the least we can do is to ensure pay equity.”

One of few female supervisors at the Goodyear plant in Gadsden, Alabama for almost two decades, Lily Ledbetter was consistently awarded lower pay raises than her male counterparts. When she finally learned of the discrimination, Ledbetter filed a formal charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), in which she asserted, among other claims, a Title VII pay discrimination claim and a claim under the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Ledbetter’s case went to trial, and the jury awarded her back-pay and approximately $3.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages for the extreme nature of the pay discrimination to which she had been subject.

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the jury verdict, holding that her case was filed too late – even though Ms. Ledbetter continued to receive discriminatory pay – because the company’s original decision on her pay had been made years earlier. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Alito, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Eleventh Circuit decision and ruled that employees cannot challenge ongoing pay discrimination if the employer’s original discriminatory pay decision occurred outside of the statute of limitations period, even when the employee continues to receive paychecks that have been discriminatorily reduced.

In addition to speaking during Tuesday’s program, Lilly Ledbetter will attend the Women’s Caucus meetings and meet with key leaders throughout Convention week. While Ledbetter will not be making a political endorsement for President, her Convention speech sends a strong message about the high priority Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are making of the pay equity issue.


and this:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/amandascott/gGxY4N

swoons.

angelica

angelica wrote:

Overcoming obstacles comes from within.

Jeanie wrote:

Being a woman shouldn't be considered an obstacle.

I missed this awhile back.

I feel great honour being a woman.

Being a woman is a glorious thing, and I advocate women owning and radiating...their womanliness!! (I also believe feminism sometimes advocates something quite other than honouring one's womanliness, by encouraging us to more finely tune the symbolically male-intelligences, and wielding power in external, linear, patriarchal ways. Unlike the symbolically feminine, receptive, matriarchal or interarchal ways.)

Our natural evolution, as men, women, plant, animal, etc. includes meeting challenges and overcoming obstacles. As much as we legislate challenges away, new ones will arise, until we learn to solve our problems of natural evolution.

I have faced many challenges as a female in my life. These evolutionary challenges have honed great skill for me, and refined my energy far beyond what at one time were my wildest dreams. And this process continues exponentially, daily. I'm very much for supporting and encouraging others as they move through their challenges. At the same time, I realize it's a fallacy to imagine that we can just wish challenges away... as in the example I gave earlier of the abused woman, who must overcome her inner challenge, even when outer systems are changed to support her empowerment.

I'm all for creating healthy change in systems. I'm not for the false empowerment that comes at a loss to another (ie: infringement on another)...such "empowerment" is a false illusory rationalization that perpetuates imbalanced cycles.

angelica

Collin wrote:

"Means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek."

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

This is the key...anything less is perpetuating imbalance. Maybe at expense to another, rather than one's self. To me, that is not problem-solving. It's creating karma and backlashes.