So, I know me, Garbo and Nigel are Discofemininjas, and I was wondering how the two idea sets intersect for us?
For me it reminds me not to become dogmatic about my feminist leanings, and to change my mind about things if I am presented with better evidence or methods, to use humour, satire and open ended questions designed to make people TFYS as a main tool ref feminist culture jamming, on which I will probably start a thread on later.
I particularly LOVE PeeDee and its denizens because it's possibly one of the MOST egalitarian places on the internet, and being openly female here doesn't preclude harassment, in fact I am confident if we were harrassed for being wimminz on teh intarwebs here that they would get shot down.
Also, any other discofemininjas (i fucking love that phrase) I have missed out in my observations, I am sorry.
Also, to the menz, how has discordianism influenced your attitude towards feminism?
I think once people put their egos aside it becomes a lot easier to get to the place where these things can be discussed effectively.
You can't put people in jail for being misogynists. You can't hound them, you can't retaliate. You can only discuss, uncover, and educate. You have to make information available, and you have to put it right in people's faces. The only way these things get better is by dragging them into the light of day.
Also, it is very important to as TGRR's grandfather said (I'm pretty sure), "First you say, 'no.' Then you em hurt." This is how you fight people like that. You stand up and walk away from the table to get another drink as you say, "Actually, you're wrong. And stupid. STFU."
You say, "Why don't you keep those adorable little gems of misguided knowledge to yourself?"
You say, "Well, no, I didn't find that funny at all. Perhaps you can explain to me why you do?"
And if they come at you with aggression...well, Malcolm X had something to say about that, I think.
I still don't like the word feminism, partially because it has a bad rep, but mostly because I think the word itself is doomed. It just sounds like something men shouldn't be involved in for some reason. But, again, that's where education, and being in the right people's faces, is so important.
I have something about this that I need to finish...
I think today. Yeah.
My discordianism contains a strong "deal with individual people as individual people" component. And a strong "put specific facts above general and unproven ideas" component. The combination of these two leads me to conclude that I have nothing to be gained and much to be lost by interacting with people based on stereotypes rather than based on what kind of a person they are and how they treat me. And frankly, it fucking boggles my mind that there are millions of people who advocate for people not to be treated unfairly because of their skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. who are still perfectly willing to dismiss 50 FUCKING PERCENT OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION as second-class citizens (or just property) because of what kind of a crotch they have. These people should all be slapped hard. In the face. With an outboard motor.
I agree with Alty about not liking the word, mostly out of a reflex dislike of "-ism" in general.
1. Every Discordian - as I use the term - is by definition a feminist, and in that I include at least moral support for the LGBT mob. To pigeonhole someone else into a role is to pigeonhole YOURSELF into a role. There cannot be a slave without a master, and while the slave's life is hell, the master becomes a moral sinkhole that can't properly be classified as a human being.
2. Alty is riding the correct motorcycle. First you say NO, then you put a hurting on them, as The Terrible Old Man used to say, as he reminsced about thumping Pinkerton goons with an axe handle. State your position first, and if that doesn't work, go all Patrick Henry on them.
3. I do not allow words like "feminism", "liberal", or "rights" to be taken by RWNers and morphed into something vile. Let THEM incur the horrible wrath of the Queen. And if that sets off filters in the bozos, that's THEIR PROBLEM. I am not responsible for the atrocious state of their heads, and I am not responsible for what their subsequent actions bring on themselves. THEY have "Traditional Values™", WE have I WILL KILL A MOTHERFUCKER. THEY have DOMA, WE understand IN THE NADS. There is no excuse for taking shit from jackasses.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 05:47:45 PM
1. Every Discordian - as I use the term - is by definition a feminist, and in that I include at least moral support for the LGBT mob. To pigeonhole someone else into a role is to pigeonhole YOURSELF into a role. There cannot be a slave without a master, and while the slave's life is hell, the master becomes a moral sinkhole that can't properly be classified as a human being.
2. Alty is riding the correct motorcycle. First you say NO, then you put a hurting on them, as The Terrible Old Man used to say, as he reminsced about thumping Pinkerton goons with an axe handle. State your position first, and if that doesn't work, go all Patrick Henry on them.
:eek:
:lol:
SPILL!
Quote3. I do not allow words like "feminism", "liberal", or "rights" to be taken by RWNers and morphed into something vile. Let THEM incur the horrible wrath of the Queen. And if that sets off filters in the bozos, that's THEIR PROBLEM. I am not responsible for the atrocious state of their heads, and I am not responsible for what their subsequent actions bring on themselves. THEY have "Traditional Values™", WE have I WILL KILL A MOTHERFUCKER. THEY have DOMA, WE understand IN THE NADS. There is no excuse for taking shit from jackasses.
:mittens:
Quote from: Pixie on July 02, 2012, 04:54:14 PM
I particularly LOVE PeeDee and its denizens because it's possibly one of the MOST egalitarian places on the internet, and being openly female here doesn't preclude harassment, in fact I am confident if we were harrassed for being wimminz on teh intarwebs here that they would get shot down.
Indeed. :lulz:
It could also be called "chivalry", but not in a "protect the weaker sex" kind of way. That's another word that got fucked up. The dictionary definition has nothing to do with carrying swooning females over mud puddles.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 02, 2012, 07:02:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 05:47:45 PM
1. Every Discordian - as I use the term - is by definition a feminist, and in that I include at least moral support for the LGBT mob. To pigeonhole someone else into a role is to pigeonhole YOURSELF into a role. There cannot be a slave without a master, and while the slave's life is hell, the master becomes a moral sinkhole that can't properly be classified as a human being.
2. Alty is riding the correct motorcycle. First you say NO, then you put a hurting on them, as The Terrible Old Man used to say, as he reminsced about thumping Pinkerton goons with an axe handle. State your position first, and if that doesn't work, go all Patrick Henry on them.
:eek:
:lol:
SPILL!
He was a wobbly, back in the day. He took no shit from strikebreakers and scabs.
wait
there are females here?
I'm going to have to reconsider my worldview.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 07:07:08 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 02, 2012, 07:02:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 05:47:45 PM
1. Every Discordian - as I use the term - is by definition a feminist, and in that I include at least moral support for the LGBT mob. To pigeonhole someone else into a role is to pigeonhole YOURSELF into a role. There cannot be a slave without a master, and while the slave's life is hell, the master becomes a moral sinkhole that can't properly be classified as a human being.
2. Alty is riding the correct motorcycle. First you say NO, then you put a hurting on them, as The Terrible Old Man used to say, as he reminsced about thumping Pinkerton goons with an axe handle. State your position first, and if that doesn't work, go all Patrick Henry on them.
:eek:
:lol:
SPILL!
He was a wobbly, back in the day. He took no shit from strikebreakers and scabs.
If he wasn't way over there, I'd buy him a drink. NOW.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 02, 2012, 07:17:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 07:07:08 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 02, 2012, 07:02:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 05:47:45 PM
1. Every Discordian - as I use the term - is by definition a feminist, and in that I include at least moral support for the LGBT mob. To pigeonhole someone else into a role is to pigeonhole YOURSELF into a role. There cannot be a slave without a master, and while the slave's life is hell, the master becomes a moral sinkhole that can't properly be classified as a human being.
2. Alty is riding the correct motorcycle. First you say NO, then you put a hurting on them, as The Terrible Old Man used to say, as he reminsced about thumping Pinkerton goons with an axe handle. State your position first, and if that doesn't work, go all Patrick Henry on them.
:eek:
:lol:
SPILL!
He was a wobbly, back in the day. He took no shit from strikebreakers and scabs.
If he wasn't way over there, I'd buy him a drink. NOW.
He "gave up drinking forever" about 2 years ago.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 07:19:28 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 02, 2012, 07:17:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 07:07:08 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 02, 2012, 07:02:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 05:47:45 PM
1. Every Discordian - as I use the term - is by definition a feminist, and in that I include at least moral support for the LGBT mob. To pigeonhole someone else into a role is to pigeonhole YOURSELF into a role. There cannot be a slave without a master, and while the slave's life is hell, the master becomes a moral sinkhole that can't properly be classified as a human being.
2. Alty is riding the correct motorcycle. First you say NO, then you put a hurting on them, as The Terrible Old Man used to say, as he reminsced about thumping Pinkerton goons with an axe handle. State your position first, and if that doesn't work, go all Patrick Henry on them.
:eek:
:lol:
SPILL!
He was a wobbly, back in the day. He took no shit from strikebreakers and scabs.
If he wasn't way over there, I'd buy him a drink. NOW.
He "gave up drinking forever" about 2 years ago.
Lunch, then.
What does he have to say about the workforce now? You know, the people who are basically ok with a career as a speed bump in WalMart parking lot?
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 02, 2012, 07:39:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 07:19:28 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 02, 2012, 07:17:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 07:07:08 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 02, 2012, 07:02:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 05:47:45 PM
1. Every Discordian - as I use the term - is by definition a feminist, and in that I include at least moral support for the LGBT mob. To pigeonhole someone else into a role is to pigeonhole YOURSELF into a role. There cannot be a slave without a master, and while the slave's life is hell, the master becomes a moral sinkhole that can't properly be classified as a human being.
2. Alty is riding the correct motorcycle. First you say NO, then you put a hurting on them, as The Terrible Old Man used to say, as he reminsced about thumping Pinkerton goons with an axe handle. State your position first, and if that doesn't work, go all Patrick Henry on them.
:eek:
:lol:
SPILL!
He was a wobbly, back in the day. He took no shit from strikebreakers and scabs.
If he wasn't way over there, I'd buy him a drink. NOW.
He "gave up drinking forever" about 2 years ago.
Lunch, then.
What does he have to say about the workforce now? You know, the people who are basically ok with a career as a speed bump in WalMart parking lot?
Um, he died 2 years ago. He hasn't had a lot to say since, more's the pity.
He DID say this about feminism, when my mother became heavily involved in battered women shelters and the woman's liberation movement, back in the day (this is from memory, so it's not verbatim):
"I don't really understand what all the fuss is about. In my day, men and women had their places in society, and those places were pretty well set in stone. But this isn't my day anymore, and I seem to prefer your (my mother's) day, now that I think about it."
As far as people who let the bosses walk all over them, he usually just snickered in a nasty way.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 07:41:02 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 02, 2012, 07:39:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 07:19:28 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 02, 2012, 07:17:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 07:07:08 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 02, 2012, 07:02:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 05:47:45 PM
1. Every Discordian - as I use the term - is by definition a feminist, and in that I include at least moral support for the LGBT mob. To pigeonhole someone else into a role is to pigeonhole YOURSELF into a role. There cannot be a slave without a master, and while the slave's life is hell, the master becomes a moral sinkhole that can't properly be classified as a human being.
2. Alty is riding the correct motorcycle. First you say NO, then you put a hurting on them, as The Terrible Old Man used to say, as he reminsced about thumping Pinkerton goons with an axe handle. State your position first, and if that doesn't work, go all Patrick Henry on them.
:eek:
:lol:
SPILL!
He was a wobbly, back in the day. He took no shit from strikebreakers and scabs.
If he wasn't way over there, I'd buy him a drink. NOW.
He "gave up drinking forever" about 2 years ago.
Lunch, then.
What does he have to say about the workforce now? You know, the people who are basically ok with a career as a speed bump in WalMart parking lot?
Um, he died 2 years ago. He hasn't had a lot to say since, more's the pity.
Sorry. :sad:
Should've noted the quotation marks. :x He's still awesome.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 07:44:34 PM
He DID say this about feminism, when my mother became heavily involved in battered women shelters and the woman's liberation movement, back in the day (this is from memory, so it's not verbatim):
"I don't really understand what all the fuss is about. In my day, men and women had their places in society, and those places were pretty well set in stone. But this isn't my day anymore, and I seem to prefer your (my mother's) day, now that I think about it."
I don't think I ever heard an old person say something like that. :)
QuoteAs far as people who let the bosses walk all over them, he usually just snickered in a nasty way.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 02, 2012, 07:54:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 07:44:34 PM
He DID say this about feminism, when my mother became heavily involved in battered women shelters and the woman's liberation movement, back in the day (this is from memory, so it's not verbatim):
"I don't really understand what all the fuss is about. In my day, men and women had their places in society, and those places were pretty well set in stone. But this isn't my day anymore, and I seem to prefer your (my mother's) day, now that I think about it."
I don't think I ever heard an old person say something like that. :)
QuoteAs far as people who let the bosses walk all over them, he usually just snickered in a nasty way.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
You should hear what Clint Eastwood has to say about the Gay marriage issue.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 07:56:00 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 02, 2012, 07:54:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 07:44:34 PM
He DID say this about feminism, when my mother became heavily involved in battered women shelters and the woman's liberation movement, back in the day (this is from memory, so it's not verbatim):
"I don't really understand what all the fuss is about. In my day, men and women had their places in society, and those places were pretty well set in stone. But this isn't my day anymore, and I seem to prefer your (my mother's) day, now that I think about it."
I don't think I ever heard an old person say something like that. :)
QuoteAs far as people who let the bosses walk all over them, he usually just snickered in a nasty way.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
You should hear what Clint Eastwood has to say about the Gay marriage issue.
I just figured he was always ok with gay people. Hollywood and all.
It doesn't seem like a strident homophobe would make it there.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 02, 2012, 08:01:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 07:56:00 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 02, 2012, 07:54:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 07:44:34 PM
He DID say this about feminism, when my mother became heavily involved in battered women shelters and the woman's liberation movement, back in the day (this is from memory, so it's not verbatim):
"I don't really understand what all the fuss is about. In my day, men and women had their places in society, and those places were pretty well set in stone. But this isn't my day anymore, and I seem to prefer your (my mother's) day, now that I think about it."
I don't think I ever heard an old person say something like that. :)
QuoteAs far as people who let the bosses walk all over them, he usually just snickered in a nasty way.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
You should hear what Clint Eastwood has to say about the Gay marriage issue.
I just figured he was always ok with gay people. Hollywood and all.
It doesn't seem like a strident homophobe would make it there.
QuoteIn the October issue of GQ Magazine, the steely gazed slab of machismo says he doesn't think gay marriage should be such a controversial issue.
"These people who are making a big deal about gay marriage?" Eastwood tells the magazine. "I don't give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of ... Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-clinteastwood-idUSTRE78C7XZ20110913
When i used to be a non-denominational christian, i thought women should be treated equally as men.
Why? Because even under a christian ideology, for someone that has 2 neurons to rub together can infer from "we are all god's children and he loves us equally" what it means.
To me this isnt about discordia or feminism, its about having the humility and awareness to know that anything i didnt work for, cannot and doesnt make me better than anyone else.
Otherwise its just riding the bandwagon of unfounded illegitimate privilege.
Roger, your grandfather sounds like he was awesome. As does your mum.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 02, 2012, 09:19:42 PM
When i used to be a non-denominational christian, i thought women should be treated equally as men.
Why? Because even under a christian ideology, for someone that has 2 neurons to rub together can infer from "we are all god's children and he loves us equally" what it means.
To me this isnt about discordia or feminism, its about having the humility and awareness to know that anything i didnt work for, cannot and doesnt make me better than anyone else.
Otherwise its just riding the bandwagon of unfounded illegitimate privilege.
Actual Christian doctrine doesnt support gender equality. Fundamentalists are correct in their assertion of male social supremacy, according to the actual Biblical teachings. Newer, more politically correct interpretations ignore the historical beliefs. I believe in gender equality, but Christians arent supposed to. The only way they can is by tossing out established teachings, in which case they might as well just throw away Christianity altogether, which I would suggest they do.
Up until I was about 13 and went through my teenage years, I looked at people for who they are: people. Then I went through a phase where nigger spic and clean my kitchen were the hip trend of the week, and now I'm back to my kid ideals. I hit back into that about 16 when I realized stupid people are stupid and trimmed down the amount of people I like.
For my entire life besides those 3 years my philosophy has been do what you want unless you hurt someone else in the process.
It may come from a self centered point of view, but I don't care who you sleep with. I don't care whether you got a dick or a vagina.
I don't care if you're Kenyan, Paki, Korean, Irish, German. I never have, though I might quite enjoy your tan or negative of it :P
You can fold your insides to outsides, you can get tattoos, piercings, dress the way you like, listen to what you like.
People are beautiful because of their insides, and not in the porno type way.
How I see people and judge them, we all do because we are human, is through experiences they have enlightened me with and how they have dealt with and learned from such experiences. That may seem like a schoolyard generalization but I took that to heart. If someone is doomed to repeat their mistakes over and over and refuse to grow, I generally dislike them. PD is a great place because of the mix of cultures and personal lives, and with that comes multiple points of view. I wouldn't say I'm a feminist. I wouldn't say I'm a gay rights advocate. I wouldn't say I'm a race equivalency advocate. I will say I am an advocate of happiness and contentment, and by that I mean everyone should have the opportunity to be happy no matter what they do, regardless of any other issue people come up with. Maybe in that explanation it envelopes all the LGBT ideals, and feminist ideals and racial ideals, though I myself find it different as I do not see men/women/black/white/gay/straight. I see human beings suffering or being dealt a card where their lives are unsatisfactory, and that is wrong in every case where someone becomes exceptional, works hard, becomes intelligent, and is punished by others for being so. That is the cause I fight for every day, the way I raise my children, the daily discussions my wifey and I have.
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 09:28:28 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 02, 2012, 09:19:42 PM
When i used to be a non-denominational christian, i thought women should be treated equally as men.
Why? Because even under a christian ideology, for someone that has 2 neurons to rub together can infer from "we are all god's children and he loves us equally" what it means.
To me this isnt about discordia or feminism, its about having the humility and awareness to know that anything i didnt work for, cannot and doesnt make me better than anyone else.
Otherwise its just riding the bandwagon of unfounded illegitimate privilege.
Actual Christian doctrine doesnt support gender equality. Fundamentalists are correct in their assertion of male social supremacy, according to the actual Biblical teachings. Newer, more politically correct interpretations ignore the historical beliefs. I believe in gender equality, but Christians arent supposed to. The only way they can is by tossing out established teachings, in which case they might as well just throw away Christianity altogether, which I would suggest they do.
Read the Apocrypha, specifically Benjamin & Ruth (the Apocrypha Benjamin & Ruth are distinct from the other books of Benjamin & Ruth, who were different people).
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 09:56:46 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 09:28:28 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 02, 2012, 09:19:42 PM
When i used to be a non-denominational christian, i thought women should be treated equally as men.
Why? Because even under a christian ideology, for someone that has 2 neurons to rub together can infer from "we are all god's children and he loves us equally" what it means.
To me this isnt about discordia or feminism, its about having the humility and awareness to know that anything i didnt work for, cannot and doesnt make me better than anyone else.
Otherwise its just riding the bandwagon of unfounded illegitimate privilege.
Actual Christian doctrine doesnt support gender equality. Fundamentalists are correct in their assertion of male social supremacy, according to the actual Biblical teachings. Newer, more politically correct interpretations ignore the historical beliefs. I believe in gender equality, but Christians arent supposed to. The only way they can is by tossing out established teachings, in which case they might as well just throw away Christianity altogether, which I would suggest they do.
Read the Apocrypha, specifically Benjamin & Ruth (the Apocrypha Benjamin & Ruth are distinct from the other books of Benjamin & Ruth, who were different people).
I'm not saying there weren't ideas about equality back then, nor am I advocating the hard-line fundamentalist position. But for over a thousand years, Christianity like most middle-eastern death cults was very strict about gender roles and social pecking order. Whether the underlying "message" of the religion can be bent in more modern directions is irrelevant: Christianity as a religion has a central identity that espouses male-dominated society and literal
servitude for women. To deny this identity is to back out of Christianity altogether, because that identity is as central to the premise of that religion as the very "salvation" it offers. If you're going to go as far as ignoring centuries of male dominance just because society doesn't see things that way anymore, you might as well walk the other couple of steps to just dropping the religion altogether, since you're not longer a believer in it as it was intended in the beginning.
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 10:12:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 09:56:46 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 09:28:28 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 02, 2012, 09:19:42 PM
When i used to be a non-denominational christian, i thought women should be treated equally as men.
Why? Because even under a christian ideology, for someone that has 2 neurons to rub together can infer from "we are all god's children and he loves us equally" what it means.
To me this isnt about discordia or feminism, its about having the humility and awareness to know that anything i didnt work for, cannot and doesnt make me better than anyone else.
Otherwise its just riding the bandwagon of unfounded illegitimate privilege.
Actual Christian doctrine doesnt support gender equality. Fundamentalists are correct in their assertion of male social supremacy, according to the actual Biblical teachings. Newer, more politically correct interpretations ignore the historical beliefs. I believe in gender equality, but Christians arent supposed to. The only way they can is by tossing out established teachings, in which case they might as well just throw away Christianity altogether, which I would suggest they do.
Read the Apocrypha, specifically Benjamin & Ruth (the Apocrypha Benjamin & Ruth are distinct from the other books of Benjamin & Ruth, who were different people).
I'm not saying there weren't ideas about equality back then, nor am I advocating the hard-line fundamentalist position. But for over a thousand years, Christianity like most middle-eastern death cults was very strict about gender roles and social pecking order. Whether the underlying "message" of the religion can be bent in more modern directions is irrelevant: Christianity as a religion has a central identity that espouses male-dominated society and literal servitude for women. To deny this identity is to back out of Christianity altogether, because that identity is as central to the premise of that religion as the very "salvation" it offers. If you're going to go as far as ignoring centuries of male dominance just because society doesn't see things that way anymore, you might as well walk the other couple of steps to just dropping the religion altogether, since you're not longer a believer in it as it was intended in the beginning.
The Old Testament with all that hijinx about Eve being made from a rib and other examples undermine women.
But can that be said about the New Testament? Doesnt it revolve more about love and all that stuff?
Vex, are you trying to apply logic to True Believers? :lulz:
Go kick yourself in the nuts, twice, then say ten "Hail Pat Robertsons" and reflect on the nature of your folly.
Im not trying to be a contrarian, but the premise of the question just doesnt sit right to me.
QuoteAlso, to the menz, how has discordianism influenced your attitude towards feminism?
I feel as if the premise is that discordia changes one's way of thinking about things, when in, at least my case, I arrived to discordia because of what i already believed in or how i thought about things.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 02, 2012, 10:18:37 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 10:12:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 02, 2012, 09:56:46 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 09:28:28 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 02, 2012, 09:19:42 PM
When i used to be a non-denominational christian, i thought women should be treated equally as men.
Why? Because even under a christian ideology, for someone that has 2 neurons to rub together can infer from "we are all god's children and he loves us equally" what it means.
To me this isnt about discordia or feminism, its about having the humility and awareness to know that anything i didnt work for, cannot and doesnt make me better than anyone else.
Otherwise its just riding the bandwagon of unfounded illegitimate privilege.
Actual Christian doctrine doesnt support gender equality. Fundamentalists are correct in their assertion of male social supremacy, according to the actual Biblical teachings. Newer, more politically correct interpretations ignore the historical beliefs. I believe in gender equality, but Christians arent supposed to. The only way they can is by tossing out established teachings, in which case they might as well just throw away Christianity altogether, which I would suggest they do.
Read the Apocrypha, specifically Benjamin & Ruth (the Apocrypha Benjamin & Ruth are distinct from the other books of Benjamin & Ruth, who were different people).
I'm not saying there weren't ideas about equality back then, nor am I advocating the hard-line fundamentalist position. But for over a thousand years, Christianity like most middle-eastern death cults was very strict about gender roles and social pecking order. Whether the underlying "message" of the religion can be bent in more modern directions is irrelevant: Christianity as a religion has a central identity that espouses male-dominated society and literal servitude for women. To deny this identity is to back out of Christianity altogether, because that identity is as central to the premise of that religion as the very "salvation" it offers. If you're going to go as far as ignoring centuries of male dominance just because society doesn't see things that way anymore, you might as well walk the other couple of steps to just dropping the religion altogether, since you're not longer a believer in it as it was intended in the beginning.
The Old Testament with all that hijinx about Eve being made from a rib and other examples undermine women.
But can that be said about the New Testament? Doesnt it revolve more about love and all that stuff?
Um... no. That's just what the happy-feely "let's talk about what we wish the bible said instead of what it really says" Christians might say, but in reality, the New Testament isn't much better.
From 1 Corinthians, we learn that:
* In every household, the man is the head of the woman.
* Every woman who uncovers her head while praying defiles her head.
* It is disgraceful for a woman to shave or cut her hair.
* Women should keep silent in churches, and not be permitted to speak. If they want to learn something, let them ask their husbands. At home.
AND MORE: http://bible.org/seriespage/new-testament-church—-role-women
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 02, 2012, 10:24:57 PM
Im not trying to be a contrarian, but the premise of the question just doesnt sit right to me.
QuoteAlso, to the menz, how has discordianism influenced your attitude towards feminism?
Well, being as I have never had any real crap from discordians about feminist stuff, there are probably misogynistic douchebags who are discordian, but I've never met any. In a way, discordianism at its core attempts to break people from their social conditioning, if you get my meaning, and so they are less likely to buy into certain cultural memes or tropes, like the whole Straw Feminist thing, and are more likely to see cultural conditioning in effect... does that clarify it?
I suppose I should clarify my earlier response: Discordianism hasn't had any influence on my attitude towards feminism. It may have had some influence on my attitude towards women.
Discordianism reminds me that while I might add a word (in this case "feminist") to the pile of them I use to explain part of myself, I oughtn't get too attached to it. It's a convenient word I use to define and denote my agreement with a specific concept, and that's all it should ever be. Otherwise it turns into a uniform.
It also helps remind me that different grids will produce different and equally valid interpretations of feminism. Womanism, for example, is a feminism more relatable for women of color (according to what little reading on it I have done) than "traditional" feminism, which is rather white. That's just as valid as 'traditional' - white, middle or upper class - feminism is.
Related to the bad rap the word 'feminism' has acquired, I don't see that as a reason to dump it. Fuck that. The word, at it's most basic, means believing in women. And I will not give that up because a bunch of misogynists have made "believing in women" a bad thing.
Both points taken.
Vex: i see. well i never was really into all the dogma, that's one of the several reasons i dropped out of it. The christian argument was mostly in relation to my other point that discordia didnt really affect my views on the issue.
Pixie: Yeah that clarifies, and i think it adds to the discussion, for example, now id like to know how ECHs attitude towards women has changed.
Quote from: Echo Chamber Music on July 02, 2012, 11:16:10 PM
I suppose I should clarify my earlier response: Discordianism hasn't had any influence on my attitude towards feminism. It may have had some influence on my attitude towards women.
yea, but ECH, y'all don't call me a screeching feminazi or tell me to make you a sammich, unlike some places on the internet. Besides, I'd rather ask you to mek me a sammich, seeing as you probably make quite a good one. :lol:
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on July 02, 2012, 11:19:50 PM
Discordianism reminds me that while I might add a word (in this case "feminist") to the pile of them I use to explain part of myself, I oughtn't get too attached to it. It's a convenient word I use to define and denote my agreement with a specific concept, and that's all it should ever be. Otherwise it turns into a uniform.
It also helps remind me that different grids will produce different and equally valid interpretations of feminism. Womanism, for example, is a feminism more relatable for women of color (according to what little reading on it I have done) than "traditional" feminism, which is rather white. That's just as valid as 'traditional' - white, middle or upper class - feminism is.
Related to the bad rap the word 'feminism' has acquired, I don't see that as a reason to dump it. Fuck that. The word, at it's most basic, means believing in women. And I will not give that up because a bunch of misogynists have made "believing in women" a bad thing.
Yea, i kind of get a bit sick of the middle class white lady angle sometimes. Being working class and being raised in state housing means I can bring a different perspective to the groups I attend.
All of this brings up a point.
Do people get influenced by discordianism and/or feminism?
Or is it merely an ideology/worldview one identifies itself with after they already have critical thinking skill and related things?
If anything Discordianism has made me more suspicious of arguments from both ends of feminism; the "we don't want no women runnin' the planet" bullshit, AND the "I have a vagina and people like me have been oppressed for centuries, therefore I am more equal" bullshit. I tend to have very little patience for people who argue for special treatment to compensate for poor treatment, and then call it "equality." I haven't seen much of that here, and the moderated, no-bullshit attitude of women who post on PD helps me avoid the pitfalls of making stupid pro- and anti- feminist assumptions.
For example, a lot of people are influenced by traditional religions because it was shoved down their throats when they were young...
But how many people choose a religion that suits their ideology? I mean, i can think of paganism...
So maybe that's where one of the links between paganism and discordianism lies, having a personal ideology and then choosing a tag or affiliation based on it.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 02, 2012, 11:28:19 PM
All of this brings up a point.
Do people get influenced by discordianism and/or feminism?
Or is it merely an ideology/worldview one identifies itself with after they already have critical thinking skill and related things?
I think it's both because people are influenced by people.
We're here at PD too because we have already decided we would like to do something about this world, and I believe that requires the critical thinking skill, on top of the open view to evolve and discuss current situations especially coming from someone who lives it and help be active. There is an identity to being a discordian and that to me seems to encompass freedom and happiness.
That's also speaking from a mans point of view as well, as men and women do think differently and experience life differently and have different challenges. It would be quite difficult to discuss experiencing Aunt Flo as a man, as an example I would never experience it and could never truly understand anything but the science behind it, so my information comes from womens' (who I trust of course) posts about it.
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 11:30:36 PM
If anything Discordianism has made me more suspicious of arguments from both ends of feminism; the "we don't want no women runnin' the planet" bullshit, AND the "I have a vagina and people like me have been oppressed for centuries, therefore I am more equal" bullshit. I tend to have very little patience for people who argue for special treatment to compensate for poor treatment, and then call it "equality." I haven't seen much of that here, and the moderated, no-bullshit attitude of women who post on PD helps me avoid the pitfalls of making stupid pro- and anti- feminist assumptions.
I don't think I've ever met a feminist (radical feminist don't really count imo) who has ever said that. Also, how far are you taking this "special privilege" argument of yours?
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 02, 2012, 11:24:10 PM
Both points taken.
Vex: i see. well i never was really into all the dogma, that's one of the several reasons i dropped out of it. The christian argument was mostly in relation to my other point that discordia didnt really affect my views on the issue.
Pixie: Yeah that clarifies, and i think it adds to the discussion, for example, now id like to know how ECHs attitude towards women has changed.
I don't think it's changed due to discordianism so much as that discordianism has caused me to actually THINK about why I think things, and in cases such as that allowed me to put it into words rather than just having be a vague "well I just think that's right" sort of thing. And in my experience, when I have concrete thoughts about things like that it becomes much harder for me to stray from my principles and forces me to actively try to be the person I want myself to be (in this context, a person who doesn't treat women any differently than men unless they specifically ask me to treat them differently, usually in a romantic context).
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 02, 2012, 11:31:38 PM
For example, a lot of people are influenced by traditional religions because it was shoved down their throats when they were young...
But how many people choose a religion that suits their ideology? I mean, i can think of paganism...
So maybe that's where one of the links between paganism and discordianism lies, having a personal ideology and then choosing a tag or affiliation based on it.
i came to discordia via paganism. The goddess-centred stuff I now feel was an attempt to break away from a patriarchal society/religions. Paganism taught me that my body isn't dirty or that sex is bad, m'kay. My take on it NOW is that was a formative attempt at feminism in a spiritual sense.
Then I got the point of discordia, rejected the magickal woo-woo, after just being a Pagan Pinealist for a while (although I had a massive intellectual girl-crush on Verthaine, which was probably helpful!) and then I came here and got some critical thinking skills. After that, well I got feminista again but without the religion bit.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on July 02, 2012, 11:37:54 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 11:30:36 PM
If anything Discordianism has made me more suspicious of arguments from both ends of feminism; the "we don't want no women runnin' the planet" bullshit, AND the "I have a vagina and people like me have been oppressed for centuries, therefore I am more equal" bullshit. I tend to have very little patience for people who argue for special treatment to compensate for poor treatment, and then call it "equality." I haven't seen much of that here, and the moderated, no-bullshit attitude of women who post on PD helps me avoid the pitfalls of making stupid pro- and anti- feminist assumptions.
I don't think I've ever met a feminist (radical feminist don't really count imo) who has ever said that. Also, how far are you taking this "special privilege" argument of yours?
I was referring to "radical feminism," which doesn't count, but the Discord-induced detachment from believing everything I hear or read plays a large part in why it "doesn't count," to me. As for the "special treatment" thing, the argument is usually along the lines of, "You owe me X
just for being female." Where being a woman is somehow an achievement in itself that should be rewarded, even if the reward wouldn't be given a male person of equal qualification.
In
some circumstances I consider "Affirmative Action" (forcing gender or race quotas on employment or academic acceptance) to be "special treatment," if it can be shown that there is a more highly qualified candidate for a job or a school, who didn't get a position simply because he or she would have tipped the scales too far in one demographic direction or another.
W/ regard to "special treatment," I'd rather not get punched, because I am a chick and my bones are mucho brittle from babby having.
Also, getting punched sucks.
The end.
So maybe we can talk about discordiANS and not discordiaNISM itself that influences our views and ideas thru debate or discussion.
But i dont know, i can only speak for my own experience, and ive always treated women equally... the only thing that has changed over the years is my understanding of women's history and situation, and that mostly has to do with reading a lot of different things and also going to university.
Edit: in the end, its very different experiences, that was mostly a response to D. Monk
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 11:47:07 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on July 02, 2012, 11:37:54 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 11:30:36 PM
If anything Discordianism has made me more suspicious of arguments from both ends of feminism; the "we don't want no women runnin' the planet" bullshit, AND the "I have a vagina and people like me have been oppressed for centuries, therefore I am more equal" bullshit. I tend to have very little patience for people who argue for special treatment to compensate for poor treatment, and then call it "equality." I haven't seen much of that here, and the moderated, no-bullshit attitude of women who post on PD helps me avoid the pitfalls of making stupid pro- and anti- feminist assumptions.
I don't think I've ever met a feminist (radical feminist don't really count imo) who has ever said that. Also, how far are you taking this "special privilege" argument of yours?
I was referring to "radical feminism," which doesn't count, but the Discord-induced detachment from believing everything I hear or read plays a large part in why it "doesn't count," to me. As for the "special treatment" thing, the argument is usually along the lines of, "You owe me X just for being female." Where being a woman is somehow an achievement in itself that should be rewarded, even if the reward wouldn't be given a male person of equal qualification.
In some circumstances I consider "Affirmative Action" (forcing gender or race quotas on employment or academic acceptance) to be "special treatment," if it can be shown that there is a more highly qualified candidate for a job or a school, who didn't get a position simply because he or she would have tipped the scales too far in one demographic direction or another.
Thing about affirmative action, is that it creates role models and a sense of belonging for places that would otherwise be dominated by the more privileged group. The book I'm reading atm is going into why women fail to go into maths, Tech, Science and Engineering is that if they see a male dominated environment advertised visually, it puts them off on a subconscious level. A bunch of white dudes, however consciously progressive, are more likely to choose someone whose face fits, meaning another white guy. What people are told they can or can't do based on stereotypes, or not seeing people who are like them doing those things has an effect on the subconscious. It's called Stereotype Threat, in social psychology terms, the most simple example is telling women they tend not to score very highly in maths. The extra stress of being told this as a "fact" is basically why they don't perform as well.
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 11:47:07 PM
I was referring to "radical feminism," which doesn't count, but the Discord-induced detachment from believing everything I hear or read plays a large part in why it "doesn't count," to me. As for the "special treatment" thing, the argument is usually along the lines of, "You owe me X just for being female." Where being a woman is somehow an achievement in itself that should be rewarded, even if the reward wouldn't be given a male person of equal qualification.
But isnt this a strawman? Or how did that conversation go, as in "it took place with certain person"?
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 02, 2012, 11:50:13 PM
W/ regard to "special treatment," I'd rather not get punched, because I am a chick and my bones are mucho brittle from babby having.
Also, getting punched sucks.
The end.
Well using physical violence on someone smaller and physically weaker than you is a douchebag move, irrespective of sex.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 03, 2012, 12:00:23 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 11:47:07 PM
I was referring to "radical feminism," which doesn't count, but the Discord-induced detachment from believing everything I hear or read plays a large part in why it "doesn't count," to me. As for the "special treatment" thing, the argument is usually along the lines of, "You owe me X just for being female." Where being a woman is somehow an achievement in itself that should be rewarded, even if the reward wouldn't be given a male person of equal qualification.
But isnt this a strawman? Or how did that conversation go, as in "it took place with certain person"?
Yea I was thinking it was somewhat a strawman. There are more stripes of feminism than there are in the god-damned pride flag ffs.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 03, 2012, 12:00:23 AM
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 11:47:07 PM
I was referring to "radical feminism," which doesn't count, but the Discord-induced detachment from believing everything I hear or read plays a large part in why it "doesn't count," to me. As for the "special treatment" thing, the argument is usually along the lines of, "You owe me X just for being female." Where being a woman is somehow an achievement in itself that should be rewarded, even if the reward wouldn't be given a male person of equal qualification.
But isnt this a strawman? Or how did that conversation go, as in "it took place with certain person"?
It's a strawman, but I wasn't using it as a reason to beat up on feminism, just an illustration of how Discordianism has helped moderate my own tendencies and beliefs. I like feminism.
It doesnt really come out that way, but ok i guess?
What Joh'Nyx said.
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 11:47:07 PM
In some circumstances I consider "Affirmative Action" (forcing gender or race quotas on employment or academic acceptance) to be "special treatment," if it can be shown that there is a more highly qualified candidate for a job or a school, who didn't get a position simply because he or she would have tipped the scales too far in one demographic direction or another.
I have to sort of side-eye you here. A) I don't think that happens very often and b) I really need to stress the fact that men (and white, middle/upper class people in general) get all sorts of things that non-privileged people don't. Everything from someone's reaction to your
name to things that are supposed to be objective like standardized testing are biased. So that other person may actually be as or more qualified than the white/male applicant.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on July 03, 2012, 12:15:52 AM
What Joh'Nyx said.
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 11:47:07 PM
In some circumstances I consider "Affirmative Action" (forcing gender or race quotas on employment or academic acceptance) to be "special treatment," if it can be shown that there is a more highly qualified candidate for a job or a school, who didn't get a position simply because he or she would have tipped the scales too far in one demographic direction or another.
I have to sort of side-eye you here. A) I don't think that happens very often and b) I really need to stress the fact that men (and white, middle/upper class people in general) get all sorts of things that non-privileged people don't. Everything from someone's reaction to your name to things that are supposed to be objective like standardized testing are biased. So that other person may actually be as or more qualified than the white/male applicant.
Yea, this is why if I ever had my own babby and it was female, I'd choose a gender neutral name.
I quite like Rowan for that purpose, cos I've met girls and guys with the name.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on July 03, 2012, 12:15:52 AM
What Joh'Nyx said.
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 11:47:07 PM
In some circumstances I consider "Affirmative Action" (forcing gender or race quotas on employment or academic acceptance) to be "special treatment," if it can be shown that there is a more highly qualified candidate for a job or a school, who didn't get a position simply because he or she would have tipped the scales too far in one demographic direction or another.
I have to sort of side-eye you here. A) I don't think that happens very often and b) I really need to stress the fact that men (and white, middle/upper class people in general) get all sorts of things that non-privileged people don't. Everything from someone's reaction to your name to things that are supposed to be objective like standardized testing are biased. So that other person may actually be as or more qualified than the white/male applicant.
I'll give you that, and I also realize that the system for compensating for inequality is (by necessity) designed and implemented by privileged people, and that it is likely to retain at least some bias toward the already-privileged. And I know the whole "women and minorities are getting stuff they don't deserve because of Affirmative Action" argument is the bread and butter of bigots and misogynists, and it's dangerous territory to get into, and I'm trying not to trigger any monkey reflexes here.
I do think it's important that, in guiding a society toward tolerance while maintaining multiculturalism, we take care to avoid reverse discrimination and self-segregation. How much of that is actually a problem I don't know, and it's entirely possible I'm imagining problems that don't exist just because I'm surrounded by idiots.
Take welfare as an example
"We should get rid of welfare because there are lazy people that wont get off their ass!"
Think of the parallels between this and those that are contrary to affirmative action.
Also, tolerance is a different pony.
I think what we are referring to is the attempt to balance equality of opportunity at jobs and positions, in which if these measures werent taken, it would be dominated by a gender.
Look up statistics of women in positions of political power, its completely slanted.
"Reverse discrimination" does not exist because discrimination requires both bigotry and power. Non-privileged people may have the former but don't have the latter. EG, I don't like rich people. But I can't lock them out of anything because they have privileges I don't.
And isn't self segregation = not your problem or your concern.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 03, 2012, 12:30:03 AM
Take welfare as an example
"We should get rid of welfare because there are lazy people that wont get off their ass!"
Think of the parallels between this and those that are contrary to affirmative action.
The Welfare Queen trope is inherently bigoted.
Look at the presidential candidates of last election in the USA.
People would rather vote for a black male than a white female.
Correct me if it didnt boil down to this.
Welfare is a whole different animal and I'll openly admit to leaning Conservatard on that topic, with important caveats.
Equality: I'll cede the point because to continue arguing, I'd have to dig myself into some holes I don't want to be in, and the problems I'm warning about don't actually exist in any meaningful way.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on July 03, 2012, 12:34:28 AM
"Reverse discrimination" does not exist because discrimination requires both bigotry and power. Non-privileged people may have the former but don't have the latter. EG, I don't like rich people. But I can't lock them out of anything because they have privileges I don't.
And isn't self segregation = not your problem or your concern.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 03, 2012, 12:30:03 AM
Take welfare as an example
"We should get rid of welfare because there are lazy people that wont get off their ass!"
Think of the parallels between this and those that are contrary to affirmative action.
The Welfare Queen trope is inherently bigoted.
The reverse discrimination aversion thought process, to me, seems this way:
"Them blacks or hispanics arent really qualified for the job, they are getting a free pass"
On the election side of things, would it have been as much of a "civil rights victory" if it was a white woman president?
Probably being too cynical, but I would assume just as much of a song and dance regarding change and the like would have ensued regardless if Clinton took it. By not having a white male candidate you can spin pretty much the same party line.
I would wonder if the same amount of anti-women legislation would have passed with a female president. My gut suspicion is probably, but with better PR.
No real answers or insights here, just questions.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 03, 2012, 12:42:39 AM
On the election side of things, would it have been as much of a "civil rights victory" if it was a white woman president?
Probably being too cynical, but I would assume just as much of a song and dance regarding change and the like would have ensued regardless if Clinton took it. By not having a white male candidate you can spin pretty much the same party line.
I would wonder if the same amount of anti-women legislation would have passed with a female president. My gut suspicion is probably, but with better PR.
No real answers or insights here, just questions.
Im talking about voter's preference, not about presidential actions.
This is within the scope of historical events, in which male minorities always get their rights before women.
Women's liberation and rights came after the segregation battles.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 03, 2012, 12:42:39 AM
On the election side of things, would it have been as much of a "civil rights victory" if it was a white woman president?
Probably being too cynical, but I would assume just as much of a song and dance regarding change and the like would have ensued regardless if Clinton took it. By not having a white male candidate you can spin pretty much the same party line.
I would wonder if the same amount of anti-women legislation would have passed with a female president. My gut suspicion is probably, but with better PR.
No real answers or insights here, just questions.
Are you talking about the federal level, Junk? 'Cause I thought Obama's been relatively good on that score. Clinton would have put her foot down, definitely though. That's kind of one of her things, iirc.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 03, 2012, 12:38:58 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on July 03, 2012, 12:34:28 AM
"Reverse discrimination" does not exist because discrimination requires both bigotry and power. Non-privileged people may have the former but don't have the latter. EG, I don't like rich people. But I can't lock them out of anything because they have privileges I don't.
And isn't self segregation = not your problem or your concern.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 03, 2012, 12:30:03 AM
Take welfare as an example
"We should get rid of welfare because there are lazy people that wont get off their ass!"
Think of the parallels between this and those that are contrary to affirmative action.
The Welfare Queen trope is inherently bigoted.
The reverse discrimination aversion thought process, to me, seems this way:
"Them blacks or hispanics arent really qualified for the job, they are getting a free pass"
I kind of think we're interpreting that phrase differently, JN. "reverse discrimination" = POC/women/queers fucking over white people/men/non-queers over the way they've been screwed over (essentially).
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 03, 2012, 12:45:29 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 03, 2012, 12:42:39 AM
On the election side of things, would it have been as much of a "civil rights victory" if it was a white woman president?
Probably being too cynical, but I would assume just as much of a song and dance regarding change and the like would have ensued regardless if Clinton took it. By not having a white male candidate you can spin pretty much the same party line.
I would wonder if the same amount of anti-women legislation would have passed with a female president. My gut suspicion is probably, but with better PR.
No real answers or insights here, just questions.
Im talking about voter's preference, not about presidential actions.
This is within the scope of historical events, in which male minorities always get their rights before women.
Women's liberation and rights came after the segregation battles.
On the other hand it's arguable that white women have a much shorter and less painful trail to equality than African-Americans had, and their struggle for equality began decades later. Women got the vote in 1918, but even though blacks technically "could" vote in 1869, they were effectively (and brutally) denied that right for over a century in many cases -- well
after women got the right.
Garbo, yes, more the federal side of things. I was guessing the change of heart regarding medical reform would have been shelved first off. I don't know how accurate that assumption is, it's mainly based on the stance seeming to change over the years from quite left to fairly right wing. In fairness my sources are pretty biased here though so I won't pretend to know the intricacies.
JN - Voter's preference is difficult for me to discuss. In a world where the tallest or "best hair" candidates win incredibly more frequently, I have very little respect for many voting systems.
I think what I was trying to get at was a "Black candiate" winning is a "direct win" for (15%?) of the population, whereas a "female candiate" winning could be seen as a "victory" for (50ish%?) of the nation. People love bandwagons.
You make a fair point about how voting freedoms tend to occur, I guess I'm asking what you think would happen if this process got radically altered and say the next president was, for sake of argument, Hispanic female.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 03, 2012, 01:06:50 AM
You make a fair point about how voting freedoms tend to occur, I guess I'm asking what you think would happen if this process got radically altered and say the next president was, for sake of argument, Hispanic female.
Well, other than a bunch of rednecks screeching "GET IN DA KITCHEN" or "OMG COUNTRY RUINED" or "YOU ARE A BAD WOMAN, NOT LOOKING AFTER YOUR CHILDREN AND FAMILY" or even "IS HER BIRTH CERTIFICATE REAL???" :lol:
Id say it would speak more about the ideology of the voters rather than what practical changes it would bring about.
To me, it would mean that the voters think that given Hispanic female is thought of as a competent leader worthy of their vote and a better option of their probably male opposition.
This has nothing at all to do with assuming said given president would bring about benefitial reforms for females nor hispanics.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on July 03, 2012, 12:49:55 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 03, 2012, 12:42:39 AM
On the election side of things, would it have been as much of a "civil rights victory" if it was a white woman president?
Probably being too cynical, but I would assume just as much of a song and dance regarding change and the like would have ensued regardless if Clinton took it. By not having a white male candidate you can spin pretty much the same party line.
I would wonder if the same amount of anti-women legislation would have passed with a female president. My gut suspicion is probably, but with better PR.
No real answers or insights here, just questions.
Are you talking about the federal level, Junk? 'Cause I thought Obama's been relatively good on that score. Clinton would have put her foot down, definitely though. That's kind of one of her things, iirc.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 03, 2012, 12:38:58 AM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on July 03, 2012, 12:34:28 AM
"Reverse discrimination" does not exist because discrimination requires both bigotry and power. Non-privileged people may have the former but don't have the latter. EG, I don't like rich people. But I can't lock them out of anything because they have privileges I don't.
And isn't self segregation = not your problem or your concern.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 03, 2012, 12:30:03 AM
Take welfare as an example
"We should get rid of welfare because there are lazy people that wont get off their ass!"
Think of the parallels between this and those that are contrary to affirmative action.
The Welfare Queen trope is inherently bigoted.
The reverse discrimination aversion thought process, to me, seems this way:
"Them blacks or hispanics arent really qualified for the job, they are getting a free pass"
I kind of think we're interpreting that phrase differently, JN. "reverse discrimination" = POC/women/queers fucking over white people/men/non-queers over the way they've been screwed over (essentially).
I meant affirmative action aversion, sorry.
Quote from: Pixie on July 03, 2012, 12:04:02 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 02, 2012, 11:50:13 PM
W/ regard to "special treatment," I'd rather not get punched, because I am a chick and my bones are mucho brittle from babby having.
Also, getting punched sucks.
The end.
Well using physical violence on someone smaller and physically weaker than you is a douchebag move, irrespective of sex.
That it is, but I've heard no-troll arguments where the guy was arguing boys being taught to not hit girls when they're young is sexist against guys and he should be able to hit girls; tiny, large or in between.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 03, 2012, 01:54:35 AM
Quote from: Pixie on July 03, 2012, 12:04:02 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 02, 2012, 11:50:13 PM
W/ regard to "special treatment," I'd rather not get punched, because I am a chick and my bones are mucho brittle from babby having.
Also, getting punched sucks.
The end.
Well using physical violence on someone smaller and physically weaker than you is a douchebag move, irrespective of sex.
That it is, but I've heard no-troll arguments where the guy was arguing boys being taught to not hit girls when they're young is sexist against guys and he should be able to hit girls; tiny, large or in between.
:facepalm:
you cannot be sexist against a group that holds the majority share of the power. this is not how Kyriarchy is formed.
domestic violence from any party is not on. A dude yelling at me is one of the few things that will make me break down and get scared, due to witnessing DV in my parents relationship. women, not so much, but that's how learned behaviour is formed.
Domestic violence is one of the worst things. One of many, sure, but still one of.
And also there's the fact that guys are, generally speaking though by no means always, way, way bigger and stronger, and precisely like you said, beating anyone smaller than you--unless for some reason you're both into that sort of thing--is not on.
Quote from: Pixie on July 03, 2012, 02:03:54 AM
you cannot be sexist against a group that holds the majority share of the power. this is not how Kyriarchy is formed.
:?
And racial minorities can't be racist as long as it's aimed toward white males?
Yeah, that's not how it works. Racism and sexism are two way streets. Bigotry is a one-way street from the empowered to the disempowered. People often conflate the two.
Quote from: Pixie on July 02, 2012, 04:54:14 PM
Also, to the menz, how has discordianism influenced your attitude towards feminism?
I've been a self-identified feminist well before colliding with discordia and it has survived intact.
I didn't explicitly identify as a feminist until after Discordia but they're not really connected.
What Discordia has done for me is a process of questioning what something IS, or the idea that an ideology can BE anything in an objective sense. I know that feminism is different things to different people, there's division between feminists who think feminism can include men's issues or not (and I have an obvious vested interest in the former). So it's important to me to understand that my feminism may not be your feminism.
I do understand the skepticism Vex expresses. There's certainty too far (I know of the sincere argument 'all heterosexual sex is rape'.) It's certainly not the common thing found but there's a fair point that just because something represents a reaction to prejudice does not mean it shouldnt be judged singularly on it's own benefits. I do feel that most feminist argument, at least encountered in the mainstream, is not this kind of excess.
I get the argument tha Christianity is inherently prejudiced to women but I can't agree. I think we need to judge a 'living' ideology by it's active form. Saying that Christianity is anti-women because a technically correct interpretation says so seems like saying that China is looking after their people really well because communism is about equality. Maybe its just because Australia is less fundamentalist but i think in ten years Christians under 25 will give as little of a shit about homosexuality as they currently give about premarital sex.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 03, 2012, 04:22:27 AM
Yeah, that's not how it works. Racism and sexism are two way streets. Bigotry is a one-way street from the empowered to the disempowered. People often conflate the two.
Although the terms often require definition. There is a more specific definition of the terms used in discussion of power dynamics which requires sexism or racism to be prejudice combined with the power to act on or enforce it.
Quote from: Feminism101Short definition: Sexism is both discrimination based on gender and the attitudes, stereotypes, and the cultural elements that promote this discrimination. Given the historical and continued imbalance of power, where men as a class are privileged over women as a class (see male privilege), an important, but often overlooked, part of the term is that sexism is prejudice plus power. Thus feminists reject the notion that women can be sexist towards men because women lack the institutional power that men have.
Which is fine, but it needs to be made clear that when the term is invoked in this way that we are discussing a different thing to simply being biased based on gender/race.
Haven't read all 5 pages yet so maybe someone already mentioned but iirc Darth Cupcake is also an active feminist and she even has a blog on it iirc.
To answer the OP's question:
> Also, to the menz, how has discordianism influenced your attitude towards feminism?
Well I was brought up by a strongly feminist mother, so I got that before Discordia, and I also got over the rebelling against it before Discordia, so when I met Discordia I quickly questioned feminism, then decided it was this thing, we should probably have more of it, if it's done right.
Also, the particular Discord on this forum here, taught me the fun of calling people out on their shit and questioning their statements such that they find themselves in an awkward public position, which is useful against misogyny, all sorts of bigotry and even feminism itself :-) But now that I think about it, I think in my every day life, I engage the strife in calling out (misogynist) people on feminist topics most often. Even sometimes women, which makes me extra furious because they usually cushion the supposed lower status in a reversed stereotype "but women are more sensitive/empathic/deal better with emotional topics/etc/wawawawa"
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 09:28:28 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 02, 2012, 09:19:42 PM
When i used to be a non-denominational christian, i thought women should be treated equally as men.
Why? Because even under a christian ideology, for someone that has 2 neurons to rub together can infer from "we are all god's children and he loves us equally" what it means.
To me this isnt about discordia or feminism, its about having the humility and awareness to know that anything i didnt work for, cannot and doesnt make me better than anyone else.
Otherwise its just riding the bandwagon of unfounded illegitimate privilege.
Actual Christian doctrine doesnt support gender equality. Fundamentalists are correct in their assertion of male social supremacy, according to the actual Biblical teachings. Newer, more politically correct interpretations ignore the historical beliefs. I believe in gender equality, but Christians arent supposed to. The only way they can is by tossing out established teachings, in which case they might as well just throw away Christianity altogether, which I would suggest they do.
You know you're making the exact same mistake in reasoning as mr. Youtube Beardo Realisticnihilist is making, judging followers of a religion by how they should act "by the book" even if it should be obvious that not all followers do so.
I can understand how things may seem to you to be like that but Christianity isn't the same all over the world like it is in the USA, nor did you even invent it or anything.
At any rate, YOU do not get to decide what "actual Christians" are, or what they're "supposed to" do.
On the other hand, calling them out like this IS useful in the sense that it forces the Christians that say they're not like that and "we're not all like that" to actively denounce the ones that ARE.
BUT that is IMO the only point you should focus on when pursuing that road. Which means it's only useful with actual Christians around, so you can force them to denounce the bad Christians. Otherwise you're pointlessly bitching about some religion in a circlejerk like one of those
atheists.
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 11:47:07 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on July 02, 2012, 11:37:54 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 11:30:36 PM
If anything Discordianism has made me more suspicious of arguments from both ends of feminism; the "we don't want no women runnin' the planet" bullshit, AND the "I have a vagina and people like me have been oppressed for centuries, therefore I am more equal" bullshit. I tend to have very little patience for people who argue for special treatment to compensate for poor treatment, and then call it "equality." I haven't seen much of that here, and the moderated, no-bullshit attitude of women who post on PD helps me avoid the pitfalls of making stupid pro- and anti- feminist assumptions.
I don't think I've ever met a feminist (radical feminist don't really count imo) who has ever said that. Also, how far are you taking this "special privilege" argument of yours?
I was referring to "radical feminism," which doesn't count, but the Discord-induced detachment from believing everything I hear or read plays a large part in why it "doesn't count," to me. As for the "special treatment" thing, the argument is usually along the lines of, "You owe me X just for being female." Where being a woman is somehow an achievement in itself that should be rewarded, even if the reward wouldn't be given a male person of equal qualification.
I see, you just like to rant at people and behaviours that aren't actually here, or part of the discourse.
I feel exactly the same way about those radical Jedi that like to assrape puppies with their "light" sabres.
Quote from: v3x on July 03, 2012, 12:51:34 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 03, 2012, 12:45:29 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 03, 2012, 12:42:39 AM
On the election side of things, would it have been as much of a "civil rights victory" if it was a white woman president?
Probably being too cynical, but I would assume just as much of a song and dance regarding change and the like would have ensued regardless if Clinton took it. By not having a white male candidate you can spin pretty much the same party line.
I would wonder if the same amount of anti-women legislation would have passed with a female president. My gut suspicion is probably, but with better PR.
No real answers or insights here, just questions.
Im talking about voter's preference, not about presidential actions.
This is within the scope of historical events, in which male minorities always get their rights before women.
Women's liberation and rights came after the segregation battles.
On the other hand it's arguable that white women have a much shorter and less painful trail to equality than African-Americans had, and their struggle for equality began decades later. Women got the vote in 1918, but even though blacks technically "could" vote in 1869, they were effectively (and brutally) denied that right for over a century in many cases -- well after women got the right.
HELLO? THIS IS WORLD
YES HELLO WORLD
I think this is a bit of a stupid comparison. Your black slavery segregation battles are rather unique to US history. And where there are similar histories elsewhere they happen between different parties. The fight for women's rights is happening all over the world, and it's the same gender.
Quote from: v3x on July 02, 2012, 11:47:07 PM
In some circumstances I consider "Affirmative Action" (forcing gender or race quotas on employment or academic acceptance) to be "special treatment," if it can be shown that there is a more highly qualified candidate for a job or a school, who didn't get a position simply because he or she would have tipped the scales too far in one demographic direction or another.
To achieve anything like equality in the workplace, all groups must be somewhat representative of the general population demographics...IE, 13% Black, ~50% female, etc...Or at least as close as is reasonably possible. This is how the "token" is avoided.
And if that means that for a couple of decades, we occasionally chose to take the second-best candidate over the best candidate, well, shit happens.
Again, efficiency is an illusion.
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on July 02, 2012, 11:50:13 PM
W/ regard to "special treatment," I'd rather not get punched, because I am a chick and my bones are mucho brittle from babby having.
Also, getting punched sucks.
The end.
Most people don't want to be punched. Most people should not be punched even if they are being annoying or confrontational. Smaller more physically delicate people should especcially not be punched and women tend to be smaller and more physically delicate, but a small, physically delicate woman who initiates physical conflict should be punched just as much as a man should.
I've always considered myself a feminist, I was raised by feminists and it's one aspect of my upbringing that I never rebelled against. Discordianism has caused me to examine my assumptions about feminism and gender relations more critically, but I haven't changed any of my beliefs in any sort of drastic way on the topic.
My momma tried to raise me gender-neutral, it mostly worked.
After i had met a few of both sexes i quickly came to the conclusion that both were often stupid.
Especially the ones that were too busy playing their assigned gender to bother developing an identity.
You know what type of feminist annoys me? the ones that want the benefits without the corresponding downsides.
I have at least one female colleague who refuses to lift anything heavier than 5 kg because 'heavy lifting is for men'.
For clarification we work in a warehouse, lifting stuff is about 80% of the job.
It is almost enough to make me sympathetic to those colleagues who say that men should be paid more than women in physically demanding jobs.
Hey princess, the reason why lifting is so hard for you? it's because you never did it before. It gets easier the more you do it. All you've gotten good at is asking others for help and batting your eyelids.
I don't expect weaker people (regardless of gender) to do the heavy lifting but i do expect you to do what you can.
The lifting thing has some basis in fact. Men tend to have more upper-body strength. If I have to move a refrigerator, my first choice is find a guy in decent shape to do it, my second choice is myself and another female.
But yeah. Some people milk it. :lol:
Quote from: :regret: on July 09, 2012, 06:08:06 PM
You know what type of feminist annoys me? the ones that want the benefits without the corresponding downsides.
I have never seen that. Not once.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:21:31 PM
Quote from: :regret: on July 09, 2012, 06:08:06 PM
You know what type of feminist annoys me? the ones that want the benefits without the corresponding downsides.
I have never seen that. Not once.
I don't think the downsides are avoidable.
"IT'S THE 21ST CENTURY, YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN, BITCH!"
NOT saying that's feminism per se, or what feminism was intended to be. Just that it ended up with a lot of women leaving the kids home alone and going to flip burgers.
America: could fuck up a wet dream.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:21:31 PM
Quote from: :regret: on July 09, 2012, 06:08:06 PM
You know what type of feminist annoys me? the ones that want the benefits without the corresponding downsides.
I have never seen that. Not once.
I've seen the behavior, but they haven't self-identified as "feminist".
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 09, 2012, 06:50:11 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:21:31 PM
Quote from: :regret: on July 09, 2012, 06:08:06 PM
You know what type of feminist annoys me? the ones that want the benefits without the corresponding downsides.
I have never seen that. Not once.
I've seen the behavior, but they haven't self-identified as "feminist".
Then the behavior isn't as he described it.
I have NEVER met a feminist, for example, that believed that women should not be eligible for a draft, if a draft is in place. Interestingly enough, I have never met a feminist that agrees on a draft for ANYONE, unless the country is actually being invaded. However, if told a draft would exist anyway, the answer is always "then draft both genders".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:52:40 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 09, 2012, 06:50:11 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 06:21:31 PM
Quote from: :regret: on July 09, 2012, 06:08:06 PM
You know what type of feminist annoys me? the ones that want the benefits without the corresponding downsides.
I have never seen that. Not once.
I've seen the behavior, but they haven't self-identified as "feminist".
Then the behavior isn't as he described it.
I have NEVER met a feminist, for example, that believed that women should not be eligible for a draft, if a draft is in place. Interestingly enough, I have never met a feminist that agrees on a draft for ANYONE, unless the country is actually being invaded. However, if told a draft would exist anyway, the answer is always "then draft both genders".
I've seen that behaviour in a few women who called themselves feminists. Very few, but they do exist.
On topic: discordia has not changed my views on much, but it has challenged the way I look at the term feminism.
Most people who identilfy as "feminists" in Norway are of the radical kind, so the word has long had negative connotations in my brain.
But since I started frequenting this here forum, the word doesn't taste as bad anymore.
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 09, 2012, 07:26:06 PM
Most people who identilfy as "feminists" in Norway are of the radical kind, so the word has long had negative connotations in my brain.
Define "radical" in this context, please.
A lot of the time the Radical wing of the feminist movement can be all people see of feminism, but I think i already mentioned the straw feminist trope that is most people's experience of feminism in the media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism
This is Wikipedia@s definition of Radical Feminism...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 07:31:27 PM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 09, 2012, 07:26:06 PM
Most people who identilfy as "feminists" in Norway are of the radical kind, so the word has long had negative connotations in my brain.
Define "radical" in this context, please.
I quickly read up on terms a bit here, to answer this better, and "radical" may have been the wrong word.
What I did mean was that the loud majority of feminists in Norway are of the Andrea Dworkin type.
Quote from: Pixie on July 09, 2012, 07:41:18 PM
A lot of the time the Radical wing of the feminist movement can be all people see of feminism, but I think i already mentioned the straw feminist trope that is most people's experience of feminism in the media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism
This is Wikipedia@s definition of Radical Feminism...
Yes, and thanks to, among others, you, I have managed to see beyond the shouting extremists.
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 09, 2012, 07:59:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 07:31:27 PM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 09, 2012, 07:26:06 PM
Most people who identilfy as "feminists" in Norway are of the radical kind, so the word has long had negative connotations in my brain.
Define "radical" in this context, please.
I quickly read up on terms a bit here, to answer this better, and "radical" may have been the wrong word.
What I did mean was that the loud majority of feminists in Norway are of the Andrea Dworkin type.
That's not feminism, it's misandry.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 08:00:29 PM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 09, 2012, 07:59:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 07:31:27 PM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 09, 2012, 07:26:06 PM
Most people who identilfy as "feminists" in Norway are of the radical kind, so the word has long had negative connotations in my brain.
Define "radical" in this context, please.
I quickly read up on terms a bit here, to answer this better, and "radical" may have been the wrong word.
What I did mean was that the loud majority of feminists in Norway are of the Andrea Dworkin type.
That's not feminism, it's misandry.
Oh, I've come to realise that, but for many years, that was what feminism looked like to me.
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 09, 2012, 08:02:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 08:00:29 PM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 09, 2012, 07:59:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 07:31:27 PM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 09, 2012, 07:26:06 PM
Most people who identilfy as "feminists" in Norway are of the radical kind, so the word has long had negative connotations in my brain.
Define "radical" in this context, please.
I quickly read up on terms a bit here, to answer this better, and "radical" may have been the wrong word.
What I did mean was that the loud majority of feminists in Norway are of the Andrea Dworkin type.
That's not feminism, it's misandry.
Oh, I've come to realise that, but for many years, that was what feminism looked like to me.
And that is exactly what is used as an example of feminism by misogynists and Cletii.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 08:02:57 PM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 09, 2012, 08:02:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 08:00:29 PM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 09, 2012, 07:59:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 07:31:27 PM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 09, 2012, 07:26:06 PM
Most people who identilfy as "feminists" in Norway are of the radical kind, so the word has long had negative connotations in my brain.
Define "radical" in this context, please.
I quickly read up on terms a bit here, to answer this better, and "radical" may have been the wrong word.
What I did mean was that the loud majority of feminists in Norway are of the Andrea Dworkin type.
That's not feminism, it's misandry.
Oh, I've come to realise that, but for many years, that was what feminism looked like to me.
And that is exactly what is used as an example of feminism by misogynists and Cletii.
I know, and when I realised that, that was when I started to look beyond the extremism. Because when stupid people say that "this is feminism", I know they're most likely wrong.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 08:02:57 PM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 09, 2012, 08:02:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 08:00:29 PM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 09, 2012, 07:59:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2012, 07:31:27 PM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on July 09, 2012, 07:26:06 PM
Most people who identilfy as "feminists" in Norway are of the radical kind, so the word has long had negative connotations in my brain.
Define "radical" in this context, please.
I quickly read up on terms a bit here, to answer this better, and "radical" may have been the wrong word.
What I did mean was that the loud majority of feminists in Norway are of the Andrea Dworkin type.
That's not feminism, it's misandry.
Oh, I've come to realise that, but for many years, that was what feminism looked like to me.
And that is exactly what is used as an example of feminism by misogynists and Cletii.
The media were pretty big on pushing that shit a few years back, too. It's not so prevalent nowadays but I'm pretty sure there was an agenda there at the time.
Quote from: Pixie on July 09, 2012, 07:41:18 PM
A lot of the time the Radical wing of the feminist movement can be all people see of feminism, but I think i already mentioned the straw feminist trope that is most people's experience of feminism in the media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism
This is Wikipedia@s definition of Radical Feminism...
Straw feminism abounds.
Regardless of what the media presents, you can't be feminist and anti-male. Feminism in the true sense of the word requires a desire for empowerment and actualization for both sexes and all genders.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 10, 2012, 08:25:34 AM
Regardless of what the media presents, you can't be feminist and anti-male. Feminism in the true sense of the word requires a desire for empowerment and actualization for all sexes and all genders.
Agreed, with a slight adaptation to include the full range of humans.
Quote from: :regret: on July 10, 2012, 09:11:19 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 10, 2012, 08:25:34 AM
Regardless of what the media presents, you can't be feminist and anti-male. Feminism in the true sense of the word requires a desire for empowerment and actualization for all sexes and all genders.
Agreed, with a slight adaptation to include the full range of humans.
I'm pretty sure that you can be racist and feminist at the same time.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 17, 2012, 04:36:17 AM
Quote from: :regret: on July 10, 2012, 09:11:19 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 10, 2012, 08:25:34 AM
Regardless of what the media presents, you can't be feminist and anti-male. Feminism in the true sense of the word requires a desire for empowerment and actualization for all sexes and all genders.
Agreed, with a slight adaptation to include the full range of humans.
I'm pretty sure that you can be racist and feminist at the same time.
I think regret is referring to his subtle edit (where you said "both sexes", he said "all sexes").
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on July 17, 2012, 04:52:07 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 17, 2012, 04:36:17 AM
Quote from: :regret: on July 10, 2012, 09:11:19 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 10, 2012, 08:25:34 AM
Regardless of what the media presents, you can't be feminist and anti-male. Feminism in the true sense of the word requires a desire for empowerment and actualization for all sexes and all genders.
Agreed, with a slight adaptation to include the full range of humans.
I'm pretty sure that you can be racist and feminist at the same time.
I think regret is referring to his subtle edit (where you said "both sexes", he said "all sexes").
Oh, got it. I tend to fall into the binary culture trap of thinking of intersex as "both" rather than as a third sex.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 17, 2012, 04:55:34 AM
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on July 17, 2012, 04:52:07 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 17, 2012, 04:36:17 AM
Quote from: :regret: on July 10, 2012, 09:11:19 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 10, 2012, 08:25:34 AM
Regardless of what the media presents, you can't be feminist and anti-male. Feminism in the true sense of the word requires a desire for empowerment and actualization for all sexes and all genders.
Agreed, with a slight adaptation to include the full range of humans.
I'm pretty sure that you can be racist and feminist at the same time.
I think regret is referring to his subtle edit (where you said "both sexes", he said "all sexes").
Oh, got it. I tend to fall into the binary culture trap of thinking of intersex as "both" rather than as a third sex.
Yeah, I know where you're coming from. Funnily enough, since you're normally very mindful about things like that, I had to read word for word both of your posts to spot it, actually. I guess when I first read your post, I sort of skimmed it enough to get the content and filled in the blanks with "What Phox thinks Nigel would say". :lol:
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on July 17, 2012, 05:12:28 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 17, 2012, 04:55:34 AM
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on July 17, 2012, 04:52:07 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 17, 2012, 04:36:17 AM
Quote from: :regret: on July 10, 2012, 09:11:19 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 10, 2012, 08:25:34 AM
Regardless of what the media presents, you can't be feminist and anti-male. Feminism in the true sense of the word requires a desire for empowerment and actualization for all sexes and all genders.
Agreed, with a slight adaptation to include the full range of humans.
I'm pretty sure that you can be racist and feminist at the same time.
I think regret is referring to his subtle edit (where you said "both sexes", he said "all sexes").
Oh, got it. I tend to fall into the binary culture trap of thinking of intersex as "both" rather than as a third sex.
Yeah, I know where you're coming from. Funnily enough, since you're normally very mindful about things like that, I had to read word for word both of your posts to spot it, actually. I guess when I first read your post, I sort of skimmed it enough to get the content and filled in the blanks with "What Phox thinks Nigel would say". :lol:
:lulz: I really gotta get better about that. I also appreciate having it pointed out, so I CAN get better about that.
The thing is, too, that I find the binary treatment of intersex so distressing and I've been fascinated with it ever since I first learned that it is/was (thankfully becoming less predominant) standard practice to alter intersex infants so that they conform to either male or female physical identity, with NO knowledge or understanding of what their biology had laid out for them. I was even more appalled to learn that about 1 in 100 babies are born with chromosomes or sex organ development that differs from the binary, and are automatically tampered with regardless of whether their health calls for it.
Yeah, that's disturbed me ever since I learned of the practice.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 10, 2012, 08:25:34 AM
Regardless of what the media presents, you can't be feminist and anti-male. Feminism in the true sense of the word requires a desire for empowerment and actualization for both sexes and all genders.
I think RAW actually noticed the anti-male attitudes of "Feminism" (the Dworkin variety) back when he was still with us.
Ah yes, here it is (and this constantly get misrepresented by both RAW fanbois and anti-Model-Agnostics.. I've included a bit of the previous section for context):
http://www.realitysandwich.com/meeting_with_a_remarkable_man
QuoteWilson: You know the nicest thing my wife ever said to me?
Prop: No.
Wilson: "If all men were like you, there would be no need for Feminism." Every time I think of that, I feel such a warm glow. She knew me pretty well. She had to, after 42 years.
Prop: That's quite a complement.
Wilson: The greatest complement I've ever received.
Prop: Well what are your views on Feminism these days?
Wilson: Well, there was a point where the most widely publicized of the feminists was the nut fringe, and they were talking about men the way Hitler talked about Jews. I was not at all reticent or shy about expressing that opinion, and continually pointing out the similarity there.
They're still around, but they're not as influential as they used to be. I've always supported Feminism, except for what the mass media projected in the 60s, 70s.
My wife was a feminist, her mother was a feminist, her grandmother was a feminist, we raised our daughters to be feminists. I am a feminist, as far as anybody with a willy can consider himself a feminist. I enthusiastically support all the goals of Feminism, except for that dingbat wing who really does want to get rid of men entirely. They don't bother me anymore, because the world's going to get rid of me pretty soon anyway, so I don't care.
But I do think men have certain qualities that should be preserved. In zoos at least.
So it seems that this was a split in the group of people who claimed the term during the 60s & 70s. I'm glad the crazies didn't get to re-define the term.
Quote from: Telarus on July 17, 2012, 06:51:07 AM
Yeah, that's disturbed me ever since I learned of the practice.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 10, 2012, 08:25:34 AM
Regardless of what the media presents, you can't be feminist and anti-male. Feminism in the true sense of the word requires a desire for empowerment and actualization for both sexes and all genders.
I think RAW actually noticed the anti-male attitudes of "Feminism" (the Dworkin variety) back when he was still with us.
Ah yes, here it is (and this constantly get misrepresented by both RAW fanbois and anti-Model-Agnostics.. I've included a bit of the previous section for context):
http://www.realitysandwich.com/meeting_with_a_remarkable_man
QuoteWilson: You know the nicest thing my wife ever said to me?
Prop: No.
Wilson: "If all men were like you, there would be no need for Feminism." Every time I think of that, I feel such a warm glow. She knew me pretty well. She had to, after 42 years.
Prop: That's quite a complement.
Wilson: The greatest complement I've ever received.
Prop: Well what are your views on Feminism these days?
Wilson: Well, there was a point where the most widely publicized of the feminists was the nut fringe, and they were talking about men the way Hitler talked about Jews. I was not at all reticent or shy about expressing that opinion, and continually pointing out the similarity there.
They're still around, but they're not as influential as they used to be. I've always supported Feminism, except for what the mass media projected in the 60s, 70s.
My wife was a feminist, her mother was a feminist, her grandmother was a feminist, we raised our daughters to be feminists. I am a feminist, as far as anybody with a willy can consider himself a feminist. I enthusiastically support all the goals of Feminism, except for that dingbat wing who really does want to get rid of men entirely. They don't bother me anymore, because the world's going to get rid of me pretty soon anyway, so I don't care.
But I do think men have certain qualities that should be preserved. In zoos at least.
So it seems that this was a split in the group of people who claimed the term during the 60s & 70s. I'm glad the crazies didn't get to re-define the term.
The "woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" crowd. Not that a woman can't survive or be happy without a man. Just the way they used to
mean it. Like half of humanity is born to be utterly fucking useless. RAW was right.
I think it missed now also that some of it was satire.
Valerie Solanas, the nut who shot Andy Warhol also wrote one of the most famous "kill all men" pieces of literature, the SCUM manifesto. And while she clearly went batshit insane later, and was violent, if you actually read the manifesto it is clearly tongue in cheek and written with a good deal of humor.
and also... sometimes I think Andrea Dworkin was secretly working against feminism.