the right to getting stretch marks when you have kids!
Who needs kids to get those suckers? They come anyway! :(
I'm just stumped is all. Maybe I'm tired, but I can't think of anything women get that men don't. Well except for menstruation and they can have mine if they want it!
well how democratic of you to include men in the objectification. it truly concerns me deeply how men are held up as mere sex objects and that that is how their worth is measured. poor poor men. how ever will thye cope with this unjust attitude towards them.
I refer to the deeper meaning of 'objectification'. Objectification comes from that in our cultures, we are taught to disidentify with our emotions and emotional intelligence. When we do so, we lack the filtering to perceive the emotions of others and we therefore treat them as our desensitization dictates, as objects, rather than attune with and harmonize with them as sensitive beings we are connected to in human experience. We are taught that science, and the objective, logical view is the only "real" view, and therefore the vast majority of the population denies their base connection in their own experiences (which creates the base of codependency which is currently epidemic). The average person is ensnared within the tribal mindset, unable to be whole and individuated.
The consequences are very serious. The cycles continue.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It sounds like you're saying that men and women are being objectified because we've been taught to think like men, or we've been stimulated to use our "male" intelligence. Or that we're oblvious to it because of the same reason.
And if a person sees the objectification it is because he uses his 'feminine' intelligence.
That is a valid view, Angelica. But I disagree.
see my last post..
and by 'male' intelligence, I refer to what is symbolically 'male' intelligence, and mostly identified with males: linear, left-brained logic, reason, etc.
This is by no means something inherent to males, and not in females. Women also are taught to identify with the 'male' intelligences - every day in school for example... Women tend to have more connectors between the left and right hemispheres of the brain, however, and tend to maintain this left/right balance a little more effectively. Women, and the minority of men (30% according to personality typing) have strengths in the "feminine" intelligences.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You read the definition or definitions and compare that with the actions. If their actions don't align with said definition I have no other choice but to conclude that definition is wrong.
Yes, that would be disagreeing.
Of course, I can. I have a right to express my opinion. And like I already said, this doesn't mean I'm right.
Did I claim to know more about feminism or their strategy? I don't think so. I offered my opinion.
The only thing I have done here is give my opinion. And that's not even allowed because I'm not a feminist? So only feminists can have an opinion about feminism?
How can we have a discussion about feminism if I'm not allowed to express my views about it?
I didn't say you're not allowed to have opinions or express your views. I'm just saying I think there's a fine line between expressing your observations of the actions of a person or group and trying to put your definition on their movement. Purpose, definition, etc. can only come from within in such cases; they can't be dictated by external sources. So you can say you think some feminists' actions are sexist (or whatever you mean to say), but you can't rightfully say that feminists hate men or that feminism is about being superior to men (or that kind of thing).
I think many people who have a problem with feminism feel this way because they don't see what all the fuss is about. They think feminists are seeing injustice where it does not exist. They don't see the parallels between injustice against women and injustice against other groups. They don't see women as being objectified or, if they do, they don't see a problem with it. They prefer to see certain issues as individual rather than systemic. Etc. (No, Collin, I'm not saying that each of these statements rings true with everyone who has a problem with feminism.)
Now you are doing the exact same thing I did, but was not allowed to do: expressing an opinion about a group you are not a member of.
No I'm not. I purposely put enough qualifiers in that statement to make sure that didn't happen. I'm just stating what I've observed of and been told by some people who have a problem with feminism. Feel free to tell me if this doesn't represent you (I never said it did), but I know some people who have the opinions I mentioned. Maybe the analogy also breaks down in my mind because, although feminism is clearly a movement/school of thought, I see it as individuals - not a cohesive group - who disagree (for individual reasons) with feminism.
I didn't say you're not allowed to have opinions or express your views. I'm just saying I think there's a fine line between expressing your observations of the actions of a person or group and trying to put your definition on their movement. Purpose, definition, etc. can only come from within in such cases; they can't be dictated by external sources. So you can say you think some feminists' actions are sexist (or whatever you mean to say), but you can't rightfully say that feminists hate men or that feminism is about being superior to men (or that kind of thing).
While purpose and definition IS dictated from within, he may be accurate in his assessment of such purpose/definition. Individuals/groups are often unconscious of their ... unconscious ... or deeper agendas, and many times this can be spotted with observation.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Just because you don't see the injustice feminists support, the hypocrisy of feminists... doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I've seen it and I can't pretend it's not there. And as a man, I sometimes find it difficult to show feminists things they can't (or won't, or aren't ready to) see.
It seems to me like you're making two distinct arguments:
1. There is an injustice that you see.
2. That feminism supports it.
We can debate the first one all you want. I'm not sure you've expressly named the injustice yet, so I'm all ears.
As I've mentioned before, however, you can try to argue that feminism supports this injustice in deed, but I don't think you're qualified to represent what it supports in principle.
Who needs kids to get those suckers? They come anyway! :(
I'm just stumped is all. Maybe I'm tired, but I can't think of anything women get that men don't. Well except for menstruation and they can have mine if they want it!
How many times have you seen a woman buy a man a drink at the bar? Not very often. Why do men buy drinks for women at the bar? To have sex with her. Why do women take the drink? Because it's free.
When a woman is pregnant, she get maternity leave. Do men get maternity leave to be with their unborn babies?
Men and Women are different. We communicate differently, we react to situations differently. I don't think we could ever be completely equal, but to get close not only do men have to quit objectifying women, but women have to quit making themselves sex objects. Some of us just can't give up the free drinks and the attention.
Women are still drastically underpaid compared to men.
My wife is a public school administrator, second only to the superintendant. The superintendant makes 40000 more than she does and they just hired a football coach for the high school and he makes 20000 more than she does and she is his boss. That's fucked up!!! And she has a Masters degree.
My second example is .... myself and a female coworker both applied for management positions at the local Lowes. We both had the exact same experience. Same age and everything. We both make the same money where we currently work. Lowes offered me 36000 and I didn't take the position. They offered her 28000 and she didn't take the position. Later when we compared notes the only difference we could gleem from
the interview was I believe they were going to require me to unload trucks and I had forklift experience and she didn't.
Women are still drastically underpaid compared to men.
My wife is a public school administrator, second only to the superintendant. The superintendant makes 40000 more than she does and they just hired a football coach for the high school and he makes 20000 more than she does and she is his boss. That's fucked up!!! And she has a Masters degree.
My second example is .... myself and a female coworker both applied for management positions at the local Lowes. We both had the exact same experience. Same age and everything. We both make the same money where we currently work. Lowes offered me 36000 and I didn't take the position. They offered her 28000 and she didn't take the position. Later when we compared notes the only difference we could gleem from
the interview was I believe they were going to require me to unload trucks and I had forklift experience and she didn't.
Economically, yes you are completely right! I wonder what state your wife works in, and if they have a set pay scale for everyone. Hmm... and it's also that football is overrated in high school. Homecoming? What an inequality in sports...
I didn't say you're not allowed to have opinions or express your views. I'm just saying I think there's a fine line between expressing your observations of the actions of a person or group and trying to put your definition on their movement. Purpose, definition, etc. can only come from within in such cases; they can't be dictated by external sources. So you can say you think some feminists' actions are sexist (or whatever you mean to say), but you can't rightfully say that feminists hate men or that feminism is about being superior to men (or that kind of thing).
Al-Qaeda can say it's a muslim movement. It can say its purpose is fighting for muslim rights.
I'm pretty sure plenty of muslims will disagree and say it isn't a muslim movement but a terrorist movement and its purpose isn't fighting for muslim rights but trying to impose their will and religion onto others.
Are you saying these muslims are wrong and that al-Qaeda is a muslim movement (internal definition) and its purpose is indeed fighting for muslim rights?
Economically, yes you are completely right! I wonder what state your wife works in, and if they have a set pay scale for everyone. Hmm... and it's also that football is overrated in high school. Homecoming? What an inequality in sports...
Missouri.
Yeah, they have a legal payscale they have to follow, but here's the kicker, the school board approves (not hires) all candidates for jobs within the school system. The school administrators interview the job candidates and take their selections for review before the school board. Here's where the politics start...
If members of the school board happen to know any of the candidates they kinda lean on the school administrators to hire certain people and if they want someone bad enough they gerrymander the pay scale in order to get favorites in. It's a "good ol boy" network. We've seen them give years experience to a local man for accounting and the closest he ever came to doing any actual accounting was when he was a cashier at a local bank. There were women with more experience but they still hired him and counted his college job as accounting experience so that they could offer him more money.
Al-Qaeda can say it's a muslim movement. It can say its purpose is fighting for muslim rights.
I'm pretty sure plenty of muslims will disagree and say it isn't a muslim movement but a terrorist movement and its purpose isn't fighting for muslim rights but trying to impose their will and religion onto others.
Are you saying these muslims are wrong and that al-Qaeda is a muslim movement (internal definition) and its purpose is indeed fighting for muslim rights?
No, scb, I am not comparing feminism to al-Qaeda.
I'm saying that, while it may be the place of other muslims to say that al-Qaeda doesn't represent their religion (and this is all an internal discourse, not unlike the internal discourse I referred to within feminism), since I'm not a mulsim, I'm not able to say with any authority what does or doesn't represent the mulsim community.
Also, although other muslims may argue about whether al-Qaeda's actions are congruent with the muslim faith, they cannot know that al-Qaeda's purpose is not in fact to fight for muslim rights.
This is analogous to how I, as a pro-choice Christian, can't really claim that the intention of the pro-life movement isn't really to protect the unborn on behalf of God (if they claim that this is their intention). I can argue about what I think Jesus would do and what is representative of Christianity and the Christian community; I can point out the negative effect of their actions on women; but I can't really claim to know that their intentions are just anti-woman instead of pro-baby as they claim. (Yes, I know I'm totally opening myself up to scrutiny with this analogy, after having had so many previous arguments with pro-life members of this forum.)
As a side note, is it just me or do you seem more willing to excuse extremist factions of Islam as not representative of the group than you are willing to afford the same courtesy to feminism? (I realize we haven't yet addressed what constitutes extremism within feminism.)
1. Here's my summary of the article: According to this author: Women are unequally represented in the hard sciences in the US and "feminist groups" have asked Congress to address this. One Congressman suggesteed that Title IX, which has traditionally been applied to athletics, be applied to science as well in schools. The National Science Foundation has launched a grant to transform institutions to make science "inclusive for all - for the good of all". The author claims that Title IX has negatively affected mens sports and implies that applying Title IX to science (wasn't this just a suggestion?) will negatively impact science. Does this sound right to you?
2. Is this the only issue you have with feminism? Seems like a very minor representation of feminism to me. (I've hardly even heard about it, much less been called on to fight the good fight.)
I'm saying that, while it may be the place of other muslims to say that al-Qaeda doesn't represent their religion (and this is all an internal discourse, not unlike the internal discourse I referred to within feminism), since I'm not a mulsim, I'm not able to say with any authority what does or doesn't represent the mulsim community.
Do you see validity in an objective view?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
There is no objective view when it comes to someone else's intentions. Only they can know their true objective.
There is an objective view in terms of overall or general outcome. And those who are subjectively involved are biased to the subjective view and less likely to see the objective piece of the whole view. Which is why outside views are interconnected to the Truth.
The Truth relies on all dynamics interwoven. We're all pieces of the puzzle. We're all one. And when we can get past the limits of our own views, we can see from the view of the ocean, beyond that of the drop of water.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
1. Here's my summary of the article: According to this author: Women are unequally represented in the hard sciences in the US and "feminist groups" have asked Congress to address this. One Congressman suggesteed that Title IX, which has traditionally been applied to athletics, be applied to science as well in schools. The National Science Foundation has launched a grant to transform institutions to make science "inclusive for all - for the good of all". The author claims that Title IX has negatively affected mens sports and implies that applying Title IX to science (wasn't this just a suggestion?) will negatively impact science. Does this sound right to you?
The other article I posted goes into more detail. First of all, these "feminist groups" are feminist groups, you can leave the quotation marks. If you don't consider STEM (Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math)to be a feminist group, than what is a feminist group? Only the ones you support?
Here's what STEM writes:
"The representation of US women and girls in science, technology, ngineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields has risen dramatically in recent decades (NSF 2006c). Yet women are still concentrated in certain disciplines, and most professions continue to be sex-segregated (CPST 2004). Equitable representation would offer women equal access to well-paid, high-status STEM careers and add new perspectives to scientific and technical innovation."
These organisations all support STEM (I did not do an exhaustive search, I did a ten second google search). If you don't consider these to be feminist groups. I'd like to know exactly what you feel feminism is.
Anyway, no, I don't think your summary sounds about right. Maybe you need to read it again. You should definitely read the second article.
2. Is this the only issue you have with feminism? Seems like a very minor representation of feminism to me. (I've hardly even heard about it, much less been called on to fight the good fight.)
This is not the only issue I have with feminism. But let's address this one first, okay?
Even if this is a minor representation of feminism, it certainly is an extremely influential fraction of feminism. The consequences of their feminist actions are huge. I think it's these feminists who overshadow the "real" feminists, whom I mentioned in my first post.
There is an objective view in terms of overall or general outcome. And those who are subjectively involved are biased to the subjective view and less likely to see the objective piece of the whole view. Which is why outside views are interconnected to the Truth.
The Truth relies on all dynamics interwoven. We're all pieces of the puzzle. We're all one. And when we can get past the limits of our own views, we can see from the view of the ocean, beyond that of the drop of water.
I believe I previously stated that people can comment all they want about outcome. All I am saying against a so-called objective view is that no one but me can know what's in my heart & mind, and therefore have no basis to argue with me about my own intentions.
Whether or not anyone commenting about anything really has a more objective view than anyone else is up for debate.
Side note: Do you happen to read much Marianne Williamson, A Course in Miracles, and such?
First of all, these "feminist groups" are feminist groups, you can leave the quotation marks. If you don't consider STEM (Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math)to be a feminist group, than what is a feminist group? Only the ones you support?
Calm down. I only put quotes to indicate that I was quoting the author. (Imagine that...) She called the groups who went to Congress "feminist groups" but I don't believe she actually named any groups. (She named NOW in the article, but only to say, "Groups like NOW must be celebrating.")
(See what happens when you think you know someone else's intentions? Doesn't always work out. )
Calm down. I only put quotes to indicate that I was quoting the author. (Imagine that...) She called the groups who went to Congress "feminist groups" but I don't believe she actually named any groups. (She named NOW in the article, but only to say, "Groups like NOW must be celebrating.")
(See what happens when you think you know someone else's intentions? Doesn't always work out. )
Anyway, no, I don't think your summary sounds about right. Maybe you need to read it again.
Well then why don't you just use your words to tell me what exactly it is you have a problem with instead of having me read some articles and then infer what you are trying to say?
Well then why don't you just use your words to tell me what exactly it is you have a problem with instead of having me read some articles and then infer what you are trying to say?
Ok, I will try even though the article explains everything very clearly, definitely more clearly than I could put it. If you read it, it will immediately become clear what it is I have a problem with.
But if you really want I will try to give a summary of the points I have a problem with. It'll take some time, however, because there's a lot of information that I think is important if we want to discuss this.
I have to go right now so you'll have to wait. I really suggest you read the article, scb.
I believe I previously stated that people can comment all they want about outcome. All I am saying against a so-called objective view is that no one but me can know what's in my heart & mind, and therefore have no basis to argue with me about my own intentions.
Whether or not anyone commenting about anything really has a more objective view than anyone else is up for debate.
Side note: Do you happen to read much Marianne Williamson, A Course in Miracles, and such?
I totally agree no one knows what's in your heart, or can judge it. I also see that Collin is very perceptive on these subjects and has highly valid observations on feminism that many times people are unwilling to entertain. I'm all for demystifying these illusions and bringing it into the open for clarification. I believe that Collin earlier mentioned he sees women who have the best of intentions within feminism.
on a side note, what I read is the energy that has created Marianne Williamson, ACIM and such. It's Brilliant.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
Just curious. What like?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I'm just stumped is all. Maybe I'm tired, but I can't think of anything women get that men don't. Well except for menstruation and they can have mine if they want it!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
The right idea as defined by a guy, that's what feminism is all about
The consequences are very serious. The cycles continue.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
and by 'male' intelligence, I refer to what is symbolically 'male' intelligence, and mostly identified with males: linear, left-brained logic, reason, etc.
This is by no means something inherent to males, and not in females. Women also are taught to identify with the 'male' intelligences - every day in school for example... Women tend to have more connectors between the left and right hemispheres of the brain, however, and tend to maintain this left/right balance a little more effectively. Women, and the minority of men (30% according to personality typing) have strengths in the "feminine" intelligences.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I didn't say you're not allowed to have opinions or express your views. I'm just saying I think there's a fine line between expressing your observations of the actions of a person or group and trying to put your definition on their movement. Purpose, definition, etc. can only come from within in such cases; they can't be dictated by external sources. So you can say you think some feminists' actions are sexist (or whatever you mean to say), but you can't rightfully say that feminists hate men or that feminism is about being superior to men (or that kind of thing).
No I'm not. I purposely put enough qualifiers in that statement to make sure that didn't happen. I'm just stating what I've observed of and been told by some people who have a problem with feminism. Feel free to tell me if this doesn't represent you (I never said it did), but I know some people who have the opinions I mentioned. Maybe the analogy also breaks down in my mind because, although feminism is clearly a movement/school of thought, I see it as individuals - not a cohesive group - who disagree (for individual reasons) with feminism.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It seems to me like you're making two distinct arguments:
1. There is an injustice that you see.
2. That feminism supports it.
We can debate the first one all you want. I'm not sure you've expressly named the injustice yet, so I'm all ears.
As I've mentioned before, however, you can try to argue that feminism supports this injustice in deed, but I don't think you're qualified to represent what it supports in principle.
How many times have you seen a woman buy a man a drink at the bar? Not very often. Why do men buy drinks for women at the bar? To have sex with her. Why do women take the drink? Because it's free.
When a woman is pregnant, she get maternity leave. Do men get maternity leave to be with their unborn babies?
Men and Women are different. We communicate differently, we react to situations differently. I don't think we could ever be completely equal, but to get close not only do men have to quit objectifying women, but women have to quit making themselves sex objects. Some of us just can't give up the free drinks and the attention.
My wife is a public school administrator, second only to the superintendant. The superintendant makes 40000 more than she does and they just hired a football coach for the high school and he makes 20000 more than she does and she is his boss. That's fucked up!!! And she has a Masters degree.
My second example is .... myself and a female coworker both applied for management positions at the local Lowes. We both had the exact same experience. Same age and everything. We both make the same money where we currently work. Lowes offered me 36000 and I didn't take the position. They offered her 28000 and she didn't take the position. Later when we compared notes the only difference we could gleem from
the interview was I believe they were going to require me to unload trucks and I had forklift experience and she didn't.
Al-Qaeda can say it's a muslim movement. It can say its purpose is fighting for muslim rights.
I'm pretty sure plenty of muslims will disagree and say it isn't a muslim movement but a terrorist movement and its purpose isn't fighting for muslim rights but trying to impose their will and religion onto others.
Are you saying these muslims are wrong and that al-Qaeda is a muslim movement (internal definition) and its purpose is indeed fighting for muslim rights?
No, scb, I am not comparing feminism to al-Qaeda.
naděje umírá poslední
Missouri.
Yeah, they have a legal payscale they have to follow, but here's the kicker, the school board approves (not hires) all candidates for jobs within the school system. The school administrators interview the job candidates and take their selections for review before the school board. Here's where the politics start...
If members of the school board happen to know any of the candidates they kinda lean on the school administrators to hire certain people and if they want someone bad enough they gerrymander the pay scale in order to get favorites in. It's a "good ol boy" network. We've seen them give years experience to a local man for accounting and the closest he ever came to doing any actual accounting was when he was a cashier at a local bank. There were women with more experience but they still hired him and counted his college job as accounting experience so that they could offer him more money.
This article deals with injustice that is supported by feminists. I agree with it.
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27864/pub_detail.asp
edit: a second article, a little more detailed, about the same thing:
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/why-can2019t-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man
naděje umírá poslední
I'm saying that, while it may be the place of other muslims to say that al-Qaeda doesn't represent their religion (and this is all an internal discourse, not unlike the internal discourse I referred to within feminism), since I'm not a mulsim, I'm not able to say with any authority what does or doesn't represent the mulsim community.
Also, although other muslims may argue about whether al-Qaeda's actions are congruent with the muslim faith, they cannot know that al-Qaeda's purpose is not in fact to fight for muslim rights.
This is analogous to how I, as a pro-choice Christian, can't really claim that the intention of the pro-life movement isn't really to protect the unborn on behalf of God (if they claim that this is their intention). I can argue about what I think Jesus would do and what is representative of Christianity and the Christian community; I can point out the negative effect of their actions on women; but I can't really claim to know that their intentions are just anti-woman instead of pro-baby as they claim. (Yes, I know I'm totally opening myself up to scrutiny with this analogy, after having had so many previous arguments with pro-life members of this forum.)
As a side note, is it just me or do you seem more willing to excuse extremist factions of Islam as not representative of the group than you are willing to afford the same courtesy to feminism? (I realize we haven't yet addressed what constitutes extremism within feminism.)
1. Here's my summary of the article: According to this author: Women are unequally represented in the hard sciences in the US and "feminist groups" have asked Congress to address this. One Congressman suggesteed that Title IX, which has traditionally been applied to athletics, be applied to science as well in schools. The National Science Foundation has launched a grant to transform institutions to make science "inclusive for all - for the good of all". The author claims that Title IX has negatively affected mens sports and implies that applying Title IX to science (wasn't this just a suggestion?) will negatively impact science. Does this sound right to you?
2. Is this the only issue you have with feminism? Seems like a very minor representation of feminism to me. (I've hardly even heard about it, much less been called on to fight the good fight.)
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
There is no objective view when it comes to someone else's intentions. Only they can know their true objective.
There is an objective view in terms of overall or general outcome. And those who are subjectively involved are biased to the subjective view and less likely to see the objective piece of the whole view. Which is why outside views are interconnected to the Truth.
The Truth relies on all dynamics interwoven. We're all pieces of the puzzle. We're all one. And when we can get past the limits of our own views, we can see from the view of the ocean, beyond that of the drop of water.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The other article I posted goes into more detail. First of all, these "feminist groups" are feminist groups, you can leave the quotation marks. If you don't consider STEM (Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math)to be a feminist group, than what is a feminist group? Only the ones you support?
Here's what STEM writes:
"The representation of US women and girls in science, technology, ngineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields has risen dramatically in recent decades (NSF 2006c). Yet women are still concentrated in certain disciplines, and most professions continue to be sex-segregated (CPST 2004). Equitable representation would offer women equal access to well-paid, high-status STEM careers and add new perspectives to scientific and technical innovation."
http://www.socwomen.org/
http://www.aauw.org/
http://www.ncwge.org/
These organisations all support STEM (I did not do an exhaustive search, I did a ten second google search). If you don't consider these to be feminist groups. I'd like to know exactly what you feel feminism is.
Anyway, no, I don't think your summary sounds about right. Maybe you need to read it again. You should definitely read the second article.
This is not the only issue I have with feminism. But let's address this one first, okay?
Even if this is a minor representation of feminism, it certainly is an extremely influential fraction of feminism. The consequences of their feminist actions are huge. I think it's these feminists who overshadow the "real" feminists, whom I mentioned in my first post.
naděje umírá poslední
I believe I previously stated that people can comment all they want about outcome. All I am saying against a so-called objective view is that no one but me can know what's in my heart & mind, and therefore have no basis to argue with me about my own intentions.
Whether or not anyone commenting about anything really has a more objective view than anyone else is up for debate.
Side note: Do you happen to read much Marianne Williamson, A Course in Miracles, and such?
Calm down. I only put quotes to indicate that I was quoting the author. (Imagine that...) She called the groups who went to Congress "feminist groups" but I don't believe she actually named any groups. (She named NOW in the article, but only to say, "Groups like NOW must be celebrating.")
(See what happens when you think you know someone else's intentions? Doesn't always work out.
"Calmer than you are."
naděje umírá poslední
Well then why don't you just use your words to tell me what exactly it is you have a problem with instead of having me read some articles and then infer what you are trying to say?
Ok, I will try even though the article explains everything very clearly, definitely more clearly than I could put it. If you read it, it will immediately become clear what it is I have a problem with.
But if you really want I will try to give a summary of the points I have a problem with. It'll take some time, however, because there's a lot of information that I think is important if we want to discuss this.
I have to go right now so you'll have to wait. I really suggest you read the article, scb.
naděje umírá poslední
It's a The Big Lebowski quote.
naděje umírá poslední
I totally agree no one knows what's in your heart, or can judge it. I also see that Collin is very perceptive on these subjects and has highly valid observations on feminism that many times people are unwilling to entertain. I'm all for demystifying these illusions and bringing it into the open for clarification. I believe that Collin earlier mentioned he sees women who have the best of intentions within feminism.
on a side note, what I read is the energy that has created Marianne Williamson, ACIM and such. It's Brilliant.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!