Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!

Started by Pope Pixie Pickle, August 07, 2012, 11:33:24 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Anna Mae Bollocks

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:07:40 PM
This has gone from a discussion about how men are also harmed by the patriarchy, to a rather interesting examination of views on language previously taken for granted, to an explanation of the following (from 3 users):

1.  Men can't understand.
2.  Men can't be trusted.
3.  Allies are not desired.  Put on the whole uniform or GTFO.
4.  "Decent men" are needed for support, which assumes that "decent" isn't the default position.
5.  Men somehow want to join the "club of the oppressed".

This conversation is now a self-parody, and cannot - in its present form - have any possible desirable outcome.  It is no longer about eglatarianism, it is now the sort of thing that is used as ammunition by people opposed to feminism.

The upside is, before it turned into a pissing contest, I got one good thing out of it (thanks, Garbo).

It's starting to sound like that rusty old Gloria Steinem/Marlo Thomas rhetoric that ruined the first wave feminism by assuming we all wanted to HATE MENS AND BE FORKLIFT OPERATORS.

"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
"A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after."
"We are becoming the men we wanted to marry"
"A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual."
"Women have two choices: Either she's a feminist or a masochist."

Scantily-Clad Inspector of Gigantic and Unnecessary Cashews, Texas Division

tyrannosaurus vex

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:35:31 PM
Yes but can men join as equals, intellectually and otherwise?

Join what?

the feminist cause, the fight for equality. saying "mens ideas must take a back seat" is like telling straight people they have no business fighting for gay rights, or white people they have no business fighting for racial equality, unless they completely bow out of the conversation and do nothing but show up at rallies and echo what they're told to say.
Evil and Unfeeling Arse-Flenser From The City of the Damned.

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 04:45:21 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:07:40 PM
This has gone from a discussion about how men are also harmed by the patriarchy, to a rather interesting examination of views on language previously taken for granted, to an explanation of the following (from 3 users):

1.  Men can't understand.
2.  Men can't be trusted.
3.  Allies are not desired.  Put on the whole uniform or GTFO.
4.  "Decent men" are needed for support, which assumes that "decent" isn't the default position.
5.  Men somehow want to join the "club of the oppressed".

This conversation is now a self-parody, and cannot - in its present form - have any possible desirable outcome.  It is no longer about eglatarianism, it is now the sort of thing that is used as ammunition by people opposed to feminism.

The upside is, before it turned into a pissing contest, I got one good thing out of it (thanks, Garbo).

It's starting to sound like that rusty old Gloria Steinem/Marlo Thomas rhetoric that ruined the first wave feminism by assuming we all wanted to HATE MENS AND BE FORKLIFT OPERATORS.

"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
"A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after."
"We are becoming the men we wanted to marry"
"A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual."
"Women have two choices: Either she's a feminist or a masochist."

Both sides of the argument present a false dichtomy.  There is only one standard:  CAN YOU LIVE THE LIFE YOU WANT TO LIVE, ON YOUR OWN MERITS AS A HUMAN BEING?

If the answer is yes, you're an equal, regardless of what YOU CHOOSE to actually do.  If a woman CHOOSES to be a housewife or to have a career is her choice, and does not indicate one way or the other if she is a "feminist".

Likewise, a Gay person can choose to be whatever they want to be, if it is something inside their individual capabilities.  So can I, so can you.  No other conditions are necessary or even desirable. 
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:50:36 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:35:31 PM
Yes but can men join as equals, intellectually and otherwise?

Join what?

the feminist cause, the fight for equality. saying "mens ideas must take a back seat" is like telling straight people they have no business fighting for gay rights, or white people they have no business fighting for racial equality, unless they completely bow out of the conversation and do nothing but show up at rallies and echo what they're told to say.

Eglatarianism (or feminism) isn't something you join.  It's something you ARE and something you DO.

The approval of one faction or another is irrelevant.  I don't care if someone thinks I can only be an "associate member" because of my gender or whatever, because I never joined their group, because there IS NO GROUP.  There are only your own personal beliefs and actions.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Anna Mae Bollocks

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:53:39 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 04:45:21 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:07:40 PM
This has gone from a discussion about how men are also harmed by the patriarchy, to a rather interesting examination of views on language previously taken for granted, to an explanation of the following (from 3 users):

1.  Men can't understand.
2.  Men can't be trusted.
3.  Allies are not desired.  Put on the whole uniform or GTFO.
4.  "Decent men" are needed for support, which assumes that "decent" isn't the default position.
5.  Men somehow want to join the "club of the oppressed".

This conversation is now a self-parody, and cannot - in its present form - have any possible desirable outcome.  It is no longer about eglatarianism, it is now the sort of thing that is used as ammunition by people opposed to feminism.

The upside is, before it turned into a pissing contest, I got one good thing out of it (thanks, Garbo).

It's starting to sound like that rusty old Gloria Steinem/Marlo Thomas rhetoric that ruined the first wave feminism by assuming we all wanted to HATE MENS AND BE FORKLIFT OPERATORS.

"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
"A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after."
"We are becoming the men we wanted to marry"
"A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual."
"Women have two choices: Either she's a feminist or a masochist."

Both sides of the argument present a false dichtomy.  There is only one standard:  CAN YOU LIVE THE LIFE YOU WANT TO LIVE, ON YOUR OWN MERITS AS A HUMAN BEING?

If the answer is yes, you're an equal, regardless of what YOU CHOOSE to actually do.  If a woman CHOOSES to be a housewife or to have a career is her choice, and does not indicate one way or the other if she is a "feminist".

Likewise, a Gay person can choose to be whatever they want to be, if it is something inside their individual capabilities.  So can I, so can you.  No other conditions are necessary or even desirable.

Exactly.

Gloria Steinem was the flip side of Rush Limbaugh. Neither one is going to tell me what I want or who or what I'm supposed to like or accept.
Scantily-Clad Inspector of Gigantic and Unnecessary Cashews, Texas Division

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 04:58:49 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:53:39 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 04:45:21 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:07:40 PM
This has gone from a discussion about how men are also harmed by the patriarchy, to a rather interesting examination of views on language previously taken for granted, to an explanation of the following (from 3 users):

1.  Men can't understand.
2.  Men can't be trusted.
3.  Allies are not desired.  Put on the whole uniform or GTFO.
4.  "Decent men" are needed for support, which assumes that "decent" isn't the default position.
5.  Men somehow want to join the "club of the oppressed".

This conversation is now a self-parody, and cannot - in its present form - have any possible desirable outcome.  It is no longer about eglatarianism, it is now the sort of thing that is used as ammunition by people opposed to feminism.

The upside is, before it turned into a pissing contest, I got one good thing out of it (thanks, Garbo).

It's starting to sound like that rusty old Gloria Steinem/Marlo Thomas rhetoric that ruined the first wave feminism by assuming we all wanted to HATE MENS AND BE FORKLIFT OPERATORS.

"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
"A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after."
"We are becoming the men we wanted to marry"
"A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual."
"Women have two choices: Either she's a feminist or a masochist."

Both sides of the argument present a false dichtomy.  There is only one standard:  CAN YOU LIVE THE LIFE YOU WANT TO LIVE, ON YOUR OWN MERITS AS A HUMAN BEING?

If the answer is yes, you're an equal, regardless of what YOU CHOOSE to actually do.  If a woman CHOOSES to be a housewife or to have a career is her choice, and does not indicate one way or the other if she is a "feminist".

Likewise, a Gay person can choose to be whatever they want to be, if it is something inside their individual capabilities.  So can I, so can you.  No other conditions are necessary or even desirable.

Exactly.

Gloria Steinem was the flip side of Rush Limbaugh. Neither one is going to tell me what I want or who or what I'm supposed to like or accept.

I cut Steinem some slack, because she HAD to be extreme at the time she was most active.  There was no other way to be heard.  And she did in fact adjust her speech and actions to accomodate changing conditions, because there is a point where extremism becomes counterproductive.

I do not cut the same slack to Susan "all sex is rape and all men are rapists" Brownmiller and her adherents. 
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Anna Mae Bollocks

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 05:06:18 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 04:58:49 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:53:39 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 04:45:21 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 02:07:40 PM
This has gone from a discussion about how men are also harmed by the patriarchy, to a rather interesting examination of views on language previously taken for granted, to an explanation of the following (from 3 users):

1.  Men can't understand.
2.  Men can't be trusted.
3.  Allies are not desired.  Put on the whole uniform or GTFO.
4.  "Decent men" are needed for support, which assumes that "decent" isn't the default position.
5.  Men somehow want to join the "club of the oppressed".

This conversation is now a self-parody, and cannot - in its present form - have any possible desirable outcome.  It is no longer about eglatarianism, it is now the sort of thing that is used as ammunition by people opposed to feminism.

The upside is, before it turned into a pissing contest, I got one good thing out of it (thanks, Garbo).

It's starting to sound like that rusty old Gloria Steinem/Marlo Thomas rhetoric that ruined the first wave feminism by assuming we all wanted to HATE MENS AND BE FORKLIFT OPERATORS.

"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
"A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after."
"We are becoming the men we wanted to marry"
"A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual."
"Women have two choices: Either she's a feminist or a masochist."

Both sides of the argument present a false dichtomy.  There is only one standard:  CAN YOU LIVE THE LIFE YOU WANT TO LIVE, ON YOUR OWN MERITS AS A HUMAN BEING?

If the answer is yes, you're an equal, regardless of what YOU CHOOSE to actually do.  If a woman CHOOSES to be a housewife or to have a career is her choice, and does not indicate one way or the other if she is a "feminist".

Likewise, a Gay person can choose to be whatever they want to be, if it is something inside their individual capabilities.  So can I, so can you.  No other conditions are necessary or even desirable.

Exactly.

Gloria Steinem was the flip side of Rush Limbaugh. Neither one is going to tell me what I want or who or what I'm supposed to like or accept.

I cut Steinem some slack, because she HAD to be extreme at the time she was most active.  There was no other way to be heard.  And she did in fact adjust her speech and actions to accomodate changing conditions, because there is a point where extremism becomes counterproductive.

I do not cut the same slack to Susan "all sex is rape and all men are rapists" Brownmiller and her adherents.

I missed her adjustment. The last I heard from her was a TV interview back in the 90's:

Idiot Interviewer (I think it was John Stossell): "If a woman has less upper body strength than a man, wouldn't it compromise her abilities as, say, a firefighter? Wouldn't she be dragging a large person downstairs by the feet and banging their head on every step?"

Idiot Steinem: "Well, smoke tends to be less concentrated close to the floor, so this makes women BETTER firefighters."

Neither mentioned that you could grab a person under the armpits and let their FEET bang the steps. It was one of those moments that perfectly fit your "convertible full of screaming monkeys hurtling around the sun" analogy.

But Brownmiller definitely needs psyche help.  :horrormirth:
Scantily-Clad Inspector of Gigantic and Unnecessary Cashews, Texas Division

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 05:16:43 PM
Neither mentioned that you could grab a person under the armpits and let their FEET bang the steps. It was one of those moments that perfectly fit your "convertible full of screaming monkeys hurtling around the sun" analogy.

But Brownmiller definitely needs psyche help.  :horrormirth:

1.  And this is exactly why I choose to define feminism not as a movement, but as a value.  I am not required to accept "entrance requirements" or anything like that, to be what I am.

2.  It's a little late.  She died a few years back.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Anna Mae Bollocks

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 05:19:06 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 05:16:43 PM
Neither mentioned that you could grab a person under the armpits and let their FEET bang the steps. It was one of those moments that perfectly fit your "convertible full of screaming monkeys hurtling around the sun" analogy.

But Brownmiller definitely needs psyche help.  :horrormirth:

1.  And this is exactly why I choose to define feminism not as a movement, but as a value.  I am not required to accept "entrance requirements" or anything like that, to be what I am.

Yes. There's feminism, and OTOH, there's the female counterpart to the Little Rascals "He Man Woman Haters Club".

Quote2.  It's a little late.  She died a few years back.

No wonder she's been so quiet.  :lol:
Scantily-Clad Inspector of Gigantic and Unnecessary Cashews, Texas Division

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on August 15, 2012, 05:22:07 PM
Yes. There's feminism, and OTOH, there's the female counterpart to the Little Rascals "He Man Woman Haters Club".

We're comparing apples & oranges, here.  The two have nothing in common.  If you hate, distrust, or stick labels all over one gender or group, then you are neither an eglatarian nor a feminist.  You're the opposition.

And it doesn't matter if you're in the "feminists are a bunch of ball-busting man-haters" crowd, or the "men are incapable of understanding" crowd.  The former is obvious, the latter is just as insidious because it places a false condition on the subject.  It is NOT required for me to "experience what being a woman is like", just like it is not required for me to experience what Gays put up with, for me to include them in my view of who counts as "people".

I also have no idea what kids in Mali go through, after all, and I consider them to be humans.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

P3nT4gR4m

Quote from: Pixie on August 15, 2012, 03:18:09 PM
Quote from: Gen. Disregard on August 15, 2012, 02:48:18 PM
I don't read ANYONE in this thread bashing Feminism, big F.  What I see are some expressing that any strain or version of feminism, little f, that is practiced to exclude men because they are men and don't have the experience of being women, is a strain that is probably too insular for it's own good.


I think ANY movement designed to better the lives of any subset of humans can be bettered by having people who aren't necessarily part of the affected group, but who have the passion and the skill sets to advance the cause.  The people from the affected group will have the unique experiential knowledge, but they may not have the advocacy or media savy that an "outsider" would have. 


It just helps to make a well-rounded and robust approach, as anyone who does any kind of grass roots work will tell you.

I agree with this. The people with the privilege and the skills still need to listen to the main core of the movement/s, and take what they say seriously.


And this is, of course, just going to magically happen, regardless of how aggressively or condescendingly the "main core of the movement/s" lay on their education?

also

QuoteOh and Roger, i think most of the last 2 pages were referring to P3nt's take on it, rather than you.  You are a decent guy and it SHOULD be the default position, but in my experience, it's not always the case.

Okay, I have to admit to being a little hurt at this, coming from you. Unlike most of the people involved in this conversation, we've actually spent time in each others company. The fact that you came away from that feeling that I wasn't a decent person? That sticks in my throat a little.

I'm up to my arse in Brexit Numpties, but I want more.  Target-rich environments are the new sexy.
Not actually a meat product.
Ass-Kicking & Foot-Stomping Ancient Master of SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK
Awful and Bent Behemothic Results of Last Night's Painful Squat.
High Altitude Haggis-Filled Sex Bucket From Beyond Time and Space.
Internet Monkey Person of Filthy and Immoral Pygmy-Porn Wart Contagion
Octomom Auxillary Heat Exchanger Repairman
walking the fine line line between genius and batshit fucking crazy

"computation is a pattern in the spacetime arrangement of particles, and it's not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesn't matter." -- Max Tegmark

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 05:28:51 PM

Okay, I have to admit to being a little hurt at this, coming from you. Unlike most of the people involved in this conversation, we've actually spent time in each others company. The fact that you came away from that feeling that I wasn't a decent person? That sticks in my throat a little.

I know how that feels.  I spent a day with EOC on the East coast, had a great time, and he won't even speak to me.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

P3nT4gR4m

Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:55:29 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:50:36 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:35:31 PM
Yes but can men join as equals, intellectually and otherwise?

Join what?

the feminist cause, the fight for equality. saying "mens ideas must take a back seat" is like telling straight people they have no business fighting for gay rights, or white people they have no business fighting for racial equality, unless they completely bow out of the conversation and do nothing but show up at rallies and echo what they're told to say.

Eglatarianism (or feminism) isn't something you join.  It's something you ARE and something you DO.

The approval of one faction or another is irrelevant.  I don't care if someone thinks I can only be an "associate member" because of my gender or whatever, because I never joined their group, because there IS NO GROUP.  There are only your own personal beliefs and actions.

I like your take on "egalitarianism". It's a new word for me but it perfectly describes my feelings and approach. Probably why I have little time for feminism or gay rights or equal rights for midgets or whatever, because I lump the whole fucking shooting match together. All I can do is treat everyone on their individual merits and do my best to prevent anyone near me doing the opposite. Anything else is just some kind of bullshit niche crusade with teeshirts and entrance exams and a pecking order which is what I'm fucking opposed to in the first place.

I'm up to my arse in Brexit Numpties, but I want more.  Target-rich environments are the new sexy.
Not actually a meat product.
Ass-Kicking & Foot-Stomping Ancient Master of SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK
Awful and Bent Behemothic Results of Last Night's Painful Squat.
High Altitude Haggis-Filled Sex Bucket From Beyond Time and Space.
Internet Monkey Person of Filthy and Immoral Pygmy-Porn Wart Contagion
Octomom Auxillary Heat Exchanger Repairman
walking the fine line line between genius and batshit fucking crazy

"computation is a pattern in the spacetime arrangement of particles, and it's not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesn't matter." -- Max Tegmark

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2012, 05:33:48 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:55:29 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:50:36 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on August 15, 2012, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: v3x on August 15, 2012, 04:35:31 PM
Yes but can men join as equals, intellectually and otherwise?

Join what?

the feminist cause, the fight for equality. saying "mens ideas must take a back seat" is like telling straight people they have no business fighting for gay rights, or white people they have no business fighting for racial equality, unless they completely bow out of the conversation and do nothing but show up at rallies and echo what they're told to say.

Eglatarianism (or feminism) isn't something you join.  It's something you ARE and something you DO.

The approval of one faction or another is irrelevant.  I don't care if someone thinks I can only be an "associate member" because of my gender or whatever, because I never joined their group, because there IS NO GROUP.  There are only your own personal beliefs and actions.

I like your take on "egalitarianism". It's a new word for me but it perfectly describes my feelings and approach. Probably why I have little time for feminism or gay rights or equal rights for midgets or whatever, because I lump the whole fucking shooting match together. All I can do is treat everyone on their individual merits and do my best to prevent anyone near me doing the opposite. Anything else is just some kind of bullshit niche crusade with teeshirts and entrance exams and a pecking order which is what I'm fucking opposed to in the first place.

And that's why it has to be a VALUE and not a CRUSADE.  Crusades are bigger than people, and people around them get ground up into hamburger.  Or maybe not.  Maybe they are merely judged and found wanting...Unfit for civilized company.  Not human.

Which defeats the whole fucking point.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 15, 2012, 04:42:25 PM
Quote from: Signor Paesior on August 15, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

YES! Thank you, Paes!

Except that what Paes said had jack shit to do with what I was saying.

" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.