NationStates Jolt Archive

And feminism aims to deal with both. :D Isn't it wonderful?

sure I just wish it were doing a better job.

It wouldn't be rehashing, darling. You have yet to answer the question. Would you like to do so now? Or are you going to admit that you have no reason to give - that there is no inherent difference that necessitates or even suggests such behavior?

Well sugar, I never suggested that there was a difference that necessitates such behavior. Did I ?

So dont worry your pretty little head about that.

Nor did I say there is a difference that suggestions such a behavior is called for...except women needing men to protect them from men...but that is based on muscle and bone density and the liklihood of a stronger, faster, more aggressive man harming a weaker, slower, female.

As for the courtesies, those are not justified by some diffirence beyond I treat woemn differntly then men because i have been raised to treat women with a softer hand then men.

Because women are entitled to that.

Even though you are all ruffled I would do the same for you sweetheart.

Then sexism works very well for dealing with people.

Not people who actually think for themselves and don't try to fit arbitrary social "norms."

As basing your assumptions on the reality of life rather then on the ideal of some group of treating people as if they dont have a gender, race or age distinction is simply ignorant.

It isn't a matter of treating people as if they don't have these traits. It is a matter of treating people as actual people - as individuals - rather than as numbers in whatever grouping you feel like characterizing them in today.

I have no intention of wearing blinders because some woman is ashamed of being a woman in a given society.

So being yourself instead of conforming to what Skibereen thinks a woman should be is now being "ashamed of being a woman"?

Nice.

You want to make changes, change yourself. Because the last time I checked imposing your will on others is oppression, and it is you(and those like you) doing this to others.

We're not the ones imposing gender roles on people whether they like them or not, my dear. That's you.


It makes women feel as if they are victims and need to "rebel" and what not.

Says the guy who thinks a woman should die on a table rather than let herself be seen by a male doctor. Wow, a woman who would rather live than die is SOOOOOO rebellious. :rolleyes:

It makes women feel as if they are victims and need to "rebel" and what not.

http://www.howardlyon.com/images/paintings/page%203/Cave%20Troll%20Final%20Small.jpg

Dempublicents, stop lying. There is no way I am willing to believe that you would risk going up to a group of women and try to start a conversation about football, when there is such a high chance of making a fool of yourself.

The moderates changed public opinion.

The moderates were never moderate until after public opinion had changed.

The extremists were invariably marginalized because of their own disability to compromise

There is nothing in extremism that rejects pragmatic compromise in pursuit of the extreme goal.

Indeed, you will find plenty of extremists in reform-oriented political movements.

The common man is repulsed by excessive change, and generally feels irrational resentment towards those that call for it.

Sometimes the common people need to be shaken out of their stupor... and often it takes extremism to do it.

Dempublicents, stop lying. There is no way I am willing to believe that you would risk going up to a group of women and try to start a conversation about football, when there is such a high chance of making a fool of yourself.

If you try to start a conversation with me, a male, about any sport, you will probably make a fool of yourself, too.

I know who Michael Jordan is. I'm hard-pressed to go beyond that.

Well sugar, I never suggested that there was a difference that necessitates such behavior. Did I ?

Then it isn't a matter of "treating people who are different differently." You have no difference to cite. You are essentially treating men with less respect in this regard just for the hell of it - and telling your daughters to do the same.

Nor did I say there is a difference that suggestions such a behavior is called for...except women needing men to protect them from men...but that is based on muscle and bone density and the liklihood of a stronger, faster, more aggressive man harming a weaker, slower, female.

Once again, you cite averages in a discussion that should center on individuals. Are you incapable of seeing an individual person, instead of whatever category you place them in?

As for the courtesies, those are not justified by some diffirence beyond I treat woemn differntly then men because i have been raised to treat women with a softer hand then men.

Because women are entitled to that.

Why?

Even though you are all ruffled I would do the same for you sweetheart.

If I knew it was you (and only if I knew it was you or someone who thought like you), I'd refuse to go through the door unless you also held it open for my fiance or any man with me.

Where are the female supremacists? Where?

And if they're a tiny, marginalized minority, as they seem to be... why do people obsess so much over them?

Racists seem to be a tiny, marginalized minority. Why do we listen to them?

Because if their rhetoric goes unchecked, it can poison society.

I'm referring to the crazy people who think women are somehow better then men, who are arguably much worse then the sexists they claim to be fighting, since they throw hypocrisy into the mix as well.

The moderates changed public opinion.

when?

Racists seem to be a tiny, marginalized minority.

Um... not exactly.

Because if their rhetoric goes unchecked, it can poison society.

So... how many female supremacist policies have been implemented anywhere in the world, in recent times?

Dempublicents, stop lying. There is no way I am willing to believe that you would risk going up to a group of women and try to start a conversation about football, when there is such a high chance of making a fool of yourself.

I could care less about football, so I would be unlikely to start a conversation about it at all. Of course, if I did, and I tried to start such a conversation with most of my male friends, they'd just stare at me - as they don't follow it either.

But I don't assume that any group of any people are interested in [insert topic here] unless they are at a gathering devoted to that topic. I'm not going to walk up to a random group of people and start a conversation about video games, either (although I would if we were at a Con for video games).

If you try to start a conversation with me, a male, about any sport, you will probably make a fool of yourself, too.

I know who Michael Jordan is. I'm hard-pressed to go beyond that.

Yeah but, it's still far less risky to talk to a bunch of men about football then it is to talk to a bunch of women about football. Thats just a fact of life.

Oh, those stupid, stupid women!

So cruelly manipulated by feminists into thinking that they shouldn't be subordinate, and shouldn't be narrowly restricted to the activities their gender role permits....

Clearly, this failure of judgment proves that we were right from the start... they should all be meek housewives, whatever they want.

:rolleyes:

You're not getting what I'm a saying. I'm saying women should be proud to be women and be empowered by that fact alone. All feminists seem to do is come in an say "oh you poor woman, men have made you unequal, doesn't that make you sad, your a victim and you should be angery" Its this sort of message that gives women a very negative image about themselves and doesn't empower them, it frankly does the opposite.

Not people who actually think for themselves and don't try to fit arbitrary social "norms."

Ohhh, so the vast majority...you know the ones who these social norms are based on are all the people who dont think for themsevles.

You however, will deliberately go out and learn about things that do not interest you simply to defy social norms, you will particiapte in activites not for personal enjoyment but merely to supprt the idea of defiance of some imagined oppression.

I am inclined to say that these social norms exist because of a baseline preference established through culture...yes yes a sexist culture...but a culture non-the less. One people choose to adhere to, and since i dont live in Saudi Arabia or Iran I am not inclined to seek to liberate women from a choice.

It is a pity that you have such a low opinion of the vast majority of women...you know the ones who social norms are based on.

I dont suffer from your particular bit of closed mindedness...my assumptions only last until first contact...your distaste for all things status quo seems to carry your disdain much deeper.


It isn't a matter of treating people as if they don't have these traits. It is a matter of treating people as actual people - as individuals - rather than as numbers in whatever grouping you feel like characterizing them in today.

Really?
So you make absolutely no assumtions about people based on age, gender, and race. You make no assumtions until you have gotten to know them?
I would ask how you function, but i find it easier to simply call you out as being a liar.


So being yourself instead of conforming to what Skibereen thinks a woman should be is now being "ashamed of being a woman"?

Nice.

Those are your words, I never said what a woman should be, so again that is you imposing your perceptions on a given situation. I have only spoke of what I should be, I concern myself with my own behavior. You are the one concerned with all but your own.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1;12574330]
We're not the ones imposing gender roles on people whether they like them or not, my dear. That's you.
QUOTE]

Really, where have I suggested anyone change their behavior? No where, besides telling you to stop trying to bend the will of others to your own.
My perception effects no one...I at least have not yet encountered a mind reader.

when?

Yeah, "FUCKING PAY ATTENTION! YOUR HOUSE IS BURNING DOWN!" tends to get things done faster than "There may possibly be something resembling a candle somewhere in your place of residence."

Concern trolling is soooooo last year.

You got me Bottle. You are so totally right. My views differ from yours, and therefore I am a troll. I'm so ashamed.

Seriously, just because someone's views are not the same as yours doesn't make them a troll.

All feminists seem to do is come in an say "oh you poor woman, men have made you unequal, doesn't that make you sad, your a victim and you should be angery".

Yes, feminists recognize female oppression.

But we don't just sit back and moan about it. We fight against it.

That's the whole point.

But I don't assume that any group of any people are interested in [insert topic here] unless they are at a gathering devoted to that topic.

But say you were interested in football, is it really that bad to assume that the group of women are more likely not interested and thus making it not worth the risk to talk to them about it?

Ohhh, so the vast majority...you know the ones who these social norms are based on are all the people who dont think for themsevles.

The vast majority don't fit into all the social norms. If you look at any individual "norm", then the vast majority of men or women will probably fit it (depending - some of them are pretty much entirely artificial). However, you would be hard-pressed to find a single individual who actually met all of them.

People who think for themselves don't worry about fitting social "norms." They either fit them or don't - based on their own personality and preferences.

You however, will deliberately go out and learn about things that do not interest you simply to defy social norms, you will particiapte in activites not for personal enjoyment but merely to supprt the idea of defiance of some imagined oppression.[quote]

Not at all. I learn things that interest me. I participate in activities that I personally enjoy. Some of them would be considered "typical" feminine interests and activities. Some of them are generally associated with men. Some of the "feminine" things hold no interest for me at all.

[quote]I am inclined to say that these social norms exist because of a baseline preference established through culture...yes yes a sexist culture...but a culture non-the less. One people choose to adhere to, and since i dont live in Saudi Arabia or Iran I am not inclined to seek to liberate women from a choice.

You aren't giving women a choice on whether or not they are treated differently than men. You are simply enforcing it.

It is a pity that you have such a low opinion of the vast majority of women...you know the ones who social norms are based on.

Nice try at twisting my words. Do you honestly think that the vast majority of women meet all of the social "norms" you would ascribe to? Or do they simply meet some of them, while breaking others?

I dont suffer from your particular bit of closed mindedness...my assumptions only last until first contact...your distaste for all things status quo seems to carry your disdain much deeper.

Wow, once again, you're making comments that have nothing to do with me. Nice assumptions, but maybe you should try reality instead.

Really?
So you make absolutely no assumtions about people based on age, gender, and race. You make no assumtions until you have gotten to know them?
I would ask how you function, but i find it easier to simply call you out as being a liar.

I make very few. Any that I find myself making are immediately questioned. Considering the fact that I have never met a "typical" woman/man/black/white/Asian/homosexual/etc., I see no point in assuming that any individual is "typical."

Those are your words, I never said what a woman should be, so again that is you imposing your perceptions on a given situation. I have only spoke of what I should be, I concern myself with my own behavior. You are the one concerned with all but your own.

Your behavior is based on what you think men and women should be. A woman should thank you for holding open a door. A man should be insulted by it. You even said that no man should ever allow a woman to hold a door open for him and you seek to make your girls live up to your own stereotypes, so don't pretend that you are talking only about your own behavior.

Really, where have I suggested anyone change their behavior?

You flat out stated that no man should ever let a woman courteously hold a door open for him and that you order your daughters to let doors slam in the faces of men.

You flat out stated that you would stay and protect a woman who may or not need protection while you would not do so for a man, based on nothing more than their genitalia. You think those sorts of things don't affect others?

The vast majority don't fit into all the social norms. If you look at any individual "norm", then the vast majority of men or women will probably fit it (depending - some of them are pretty much entirely artificial). However, you would be hard-pressed to find a single individual who actually met all of them.

[quote]You however, will deliberately go out and learn about things that do not interest you simply to defy social norms, you will particiapte in activites not for personal enjoyment but merely to supprt the idea of defiance of some imagined oppression.[quote]

Not at all. I learn things that interest me. I participate in activities that I personally enjoy. Some of them would be considered "typical" feminine interests and activities. Some of them are generally associated with men. Some of the "feminine" things hold no interest for me at all.



You aren't giving women a choice on whether or not they are treated differently than men. You are simply enforcing it.



Nice try at twisting my words. Do you honestly think that the vast majority of women meet all of the social "norms" you would ascribe to? Or do they simply meet some of them, while breaking others?



Wow, once again, you're making comments that have nothing to do with me. Nice assumptions, but maybe you should try reality instead.



I make very few. Any that I find myself making are immediately questioned. Considering the fact that I have never met a "typical" woman/man/black/white/Asian/homosexual/etc., I see no point in assuming that any individual is "typical."



Your behavior is based on what you think men and women should be. A woman should thank you for holding open a door. A man should be insulted by it. You even said that no man should ever allow a woman to hold a door open for him and you seek to make your girls live up to your own stereotypes, so don't pretend that you are talking only about your own behavior.



You flat out stated that no man should ever let a woman courteously hold a door open for him and that you order your daughters to let doors slam in the faces of men.

You flat out stated that you would stay and protect a woman who may or not need protection while you would not do so for a man, based on nothing more than their genitalia. You think those sorts of things don't affect others?

...
So then the only appropriate behavior is how you suggest acting then yes?
That is what you are saying.
Because me sitting in a parking lot, passively doing nothing effects others how...of course...safety.

While you demanding people do things the way you wish is very different.

I make my opinion known and ask that no one does anything but what they do.

You make yours known and demand that all march in lock step.

Clearly you are correct.

I would like to know how i am to give a strange woman a choice, should i hand them a survey before any other interactions occur...this might delay them in their day...and anther personal habit I have is being very careful to not delay people in their business.

No, you say I am imposing my behavior simply because I refuse to change it.

You are the one actively seeking to change how people act and think, and not to get them to open their minds and make a choice about behavior for themselves...no you want them to conform you your ideals.

How are you any better then me, when I keep my ideals to my self.
Not only do your actions effect people---just as much as mine do, you would impose you will on them.

You want to hold a door open and make sure the next guy knows he has to do it your way.

I dont care what someone else thnks is right, as long as they allow me my right to think I am right.

I dont know if you are a man or a woman, but the fact that you would have people act singualr manner, the only correct manner according to you and as it happens the only correct manner happens to be the one you support--I can say without a doubt I am far more concerned about women's liberties then you are. I support a woman's right not to agree with my opinions.

I see clearly you dont support a man's right not to agree with yours.

Yes, feminists recognize female oppression.

But we don't just sit back and moan about it. We fight against it.

That's the whole point.

Aren't you a male? I confused because you're saying "we"

I don't know about "supremacist", but you seem to be able to find "extreme feminists" - for want of a better term - in many Western uni campuses... I recall a few rather vocal ones from my time in one here. One PhD student in particular almost perfectly fitted the stereotype of the dungeree-wearing, shaved headed feminist... she had a large red dragon tattooed on the side of her head. In case anyone's wondering, I know she was "extreme" from a rather public altercation she had on campus once. :)

You've sparked my curiosity. Dare I ask what this altercation consisted of?

when?

Every single time society changed without revolution.

Yeah, "FUCKING PAY ATTENTION! YOUR HOUSE IS BURNING DOWN!" tends to get things done faster than "There may possibly be something resembling a candle somewhere in your place of residence."
The Moderate Firefighter: "Put that hose down this minute you crazy anarchist! We need to pass a law to confine the fire to the first floor. If we try to put it out entirely, the fire will never take us seriously!"

Aren't you a male? I confused because you're saying "we"

Feminism and maleness are not mutually exclusive.

However surprising it might be to you.

But say you were interested in football, is it really that bad to assume that the group of women are more likely not interested and thus making it not worth the risk to talk to them about it?

Not at all. If I were interested in football, it is one of the things I'd rather talk about. It's not like it's a huge "risk" to bring it up. If the group I'm in then seems uninterested, I would talk about something else. In truth, I've known just as many women who avidly follow football (American football, that is) as I have men.

I have a friend (female) who is really into WWE wrestling. She wants to talk about it quite often. Most of us (men and women) are pretty uninterested, but she's enthused, so we'll talk about it for a bit.

Every single time society changed without revolution.

That doesn't follow.

Yes, policy changes tend to be enacted by moderates... this is in the nature of the term. After the anarchist revolution, the moderates will be expropriating factories and dismantling the state apparatus... because the political center would have shifted significantly.

But public opinion tends to be shifted, at least initially, by people who challenge it, loudly, boldly, and, yes, radically.

Namely, extremists.

Yeah, "FUCKING PAY ATTENTION! YOUR HOUSE IS BURNING DOWN!" tends to get things done faster than "There may possibly be something resembling a candle somewhere in your place of residence."

heh

what i want to know is why people forget what moderates have always sounded like. 'cause in every era, it's been the moderates telling the abolitionists, the civil rights activists, the republicans, etc. to calm down, stop being so 'offensive', and just sit back and allow horrific injustice to continue. moderates have always been on the side of doing fucking nothing.

...
So then the only appropriate behavior is how you suggest acting then yes?
That is what you are saying.

I do not find bigotry appropriate. It is appropriate to treat human beings as human beings - and we are all individuals.

Now, someone certainly has the right to be a bigot, but I'm not going to want to associate with them, and I find it absolutely disgusting when they try to pass on that trait to their children.

On an issue as subtle a sexism, that's nearly impossible.It takes more time, certainly.

I would say it is perhaps because I'm young, but I've witnessed older people behave similarly. My experience could be different merely because I live and spend most of my time in central Texas and the hill-country; there really is no other place as uniquely culturally dead.Well, it's not so much that you're wrong, but...here, let me use one of my favorite quotes from Sex and the City:

Miranda : Why do we get stuck with old maid and spinster and men get to be bachelors and playboys?

In other words, how does society view women who've never gotten married compared to men who've never gotten married? The words themselves have different connotations.

Then sexism works very well for dealing with people.Certainly. In a sexist culture.

As basing your assumptions on the reality of life rather then on the ideal of some group of treating people as if they dont have a gender, race or age distinction is simply ignorant.There isn't any valid reason to treat people differently based upon their gender, age, or race distinctions.

I have no intention of wearing blinders because some woman is ashamed of being a woman in a given society.What about wanting to be treated equally as men makes a woman ashamed of being a woman?

You want to make changes, change yourself. Because the last time I checked imposing your will on others is oppression, and it is you(and those like you) doing this to others.How does calling you out on your sexism mean that we are imposing our will on you?

Thats a very extreme use of the word sexist. There is nothing wrong with making a well founded assumption, you shouldn't call it sexist as that has negative connotations with it.The basis of the assumption is sexist, and has negative connotations.
It doesn't necessarily mean that the person making the assumption is sexist.

Well, I was thinking about it, and it seems like they do. For example, those types yelling slogans like "There's no such thing as consent! All penetration is violence!" and stuff like that. Doesn't that imply women are unable to make their own decisions, such as consenting?

Obviously, I'm only referring to the radical types.

So...

Discuss.

They're jackasses. But to a degree, they seem to claim they can only make decisions for their mind-controlled followers.

Every single time society changed without revolution.

so when mlk jr complained that

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

he was just talking out of his ass?

If I knew it was you (and only if I knew it was you or someone who thought like you), I'd refuse to go through the door unless you also held it open for my fiance or any man with me.

I would most certainly do that.

It would be disrespectful of me to hold a door for one person in a group and not another.

Exceptions prove rules, includgin exceptions to mine.

It isnt as if I am quoting physics laws, I am discribing personal behavior...if wish I can begin to attempt to describe every possible situation I might ever encounter and how i believe I would react...but we might be here awhile.

heh

what i want to know is why people forget what moderates have always sounded like. 'cause in every era, it's been the moderates telling the abolitionists, the civil rights activists, the republicans, etc. to calm down, stop being so 'offensive', and just sit back and allow horrific injustice to continue. moderates have always been on the side of doing fucking nothing.
I would hardly say the Martin Luther King jr. did "fucking nothing."

The basis of the assumption is sexist, and has negative connotations.
It doesn't necessarily mean that the person making the assumption is sexist.

So you are with me making that assumption, so long as I acknowledge that society shouldn't be that way?

I would hardly say the Martin Luther King jr. did "fucking nothing."

Martin Luther King Jr. was not a "moderate."

At all.

I do not find bigotry appropriate. It is appropriate to treat human beings as human beings - and we are all individuals.

Now, someone certainly has the right to be a bigot, but I'm not going to want to associate with them, and I find it absolutely disgusting when they try to pass on that trait to their children.

You are the only bigot I see.
Exclusion based on ideology.

As we can not treat people as individuals unti lwe know them you statement is absurd.

You are simply ignoring the fact we must use assumptions to deal with the public at large...our assumptions should begin to fall away to knowledge after first contact, but it is indeed assumtions we must begin with.

Because I assure you I will great anyone with hostility who approaches me in a familiar manner when we are not familiar.

I would hardly say the Martin Luther King jr. did "fucking nothing."


"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

my work here is done

I would hardly say the Martin Luther King jr. did "fucking nothing."

I'm not sure Dr King was a moderate. His absolute commitment to non-violence made him seem moderate, but his message was pretty much 'best to change, because we won't shut up until you do.' That doesn't seem very moderate to me. And at the time, anyone who advocated equality the way he did was pretty damn radical.

Martin Luther King Jr. was not a "moderate."

At all.

though i do wish to live in a world where people holding the views of that commie are the moderates. even better, the slight reactionaries.

I'm not sure Dr King was a moderate. His absolute commitment to non-violence made him seem moderate, but his message was pretty much 'best to change, because we won't shut up until you do.' That doesn't seem very moderate to me. And at the time, anyone who advocated equality the way he did was pretty damn radical.

Mass direct action and civil disobedience shattering the peaceful illusion of "law and order" is never "moderate." Not even close.

And his politics were anything but moderate.

my work here is done

He can call closet racists moderate if he wants. He earned it. The fact is, his methods were relatively undisruptive. No one killed because of him, while he lived anyway.

Mass direct action and civil disobedience shattering the peaceful illusion of "law and order" is never "moderate." Not even close.

And his politics were anything but moderate.

Troof. You said it better. But someone once said that when the choice was between dealing with Dr King and dealing with Malcom X, most whites would rather have dealt with Dr King. Compared to some in the Civil Rights movement, he was pretty damn moderate. Compared to the (white) majority at the time, he was pretty damn radical. It's amazing how much things depend on your point of view, isn't it?

The fact is, his methods were relatively undisruptive.

:confused:

No one killed because of him, while he lived anyway.

But people were killed because of him... or at least because of the protests he led.

The terms moderate and radical are very flexible. Mlk was not a radical in the revolutionary sense.

The fact is, his methods were relatively undisruptive

are we talking about the same person?

Mlk was not a radical in the revolutionary sense.

"These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression and out of the wombs of a frail world new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. "The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light." We in the West must support these revolutions."

- Martin Luther King, Beyond Vietnam

:confused:
No bombings. No armed revolution. No wonder he was successful. Moderation.
But people were killed because of him... or at least because of the protests he led.
Were killed by police, not did kill the police. There's a difference. You cross into the dangerous realm of extremism when you think that you are so convinced of your righteousness that those who get in the way of your ideas need to die.

Like I said, the real test is what happens when your assumptions are proven wrong.

If you knew that a given woman was perfectly capable of self-defense, and a given man was not ... would you reverse your behavior with regard to them?

Didnt catch this before.

Ok, assuming you mean I know the woman is more capable of protecting herself then a given man.

Thats tough.

I wouldnt want to insult the man, but if I really believed he was in more danger...which a woman simply being able to beat someone elses ass doesnt place her in a greater position of safety...but if I believed she was...then yeah I would of course go with the person I believed was in more danger.

I think society is geared towards a specific set of circumstances that places women in more danger in general.

"These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression and out of the wombs of a frail world new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. "The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light." We in the West must support these revolutions."

- Martin Luther King, Beyond Vietnam

faster on the draw than me, i was just looking for that

"These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression and out of the wombs of a frail world new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. "The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light." We in the West must support these revolutions."

- Martin Luther King, Beyond Vietnam

Ok, thats not really what I meant by revolutionary though. He was radical for his time and wanted a full scale government reform yes. However I don't think he wanted to completely abolish the government altogether and change everything about the system which is what I meant by revolutionary.

So you are with me making that assumption, so long as I acknowledge that society shouldn't be that way?Sort of. I'd say it would be better to treat people the same, regardless of whichever assumptions you make, and therefore not bring up with sports with men unless you have a reason to believe that those specific men like sports (they're wearing a t-shirt with a team on it, for instance), but even if you did, it wouldn't be awful. Not everyone wants to be a feminist, but not being a feminist is better than being a sexist.

No bombings. No armed revolution. No wonder he was successful. Moderation.So the only way to be an extremist is to advocate violence?

No bombings. No armed revolution. No wonder he was successful. Moderation.

So political violence is the difference between moderation and extremism?

That seems a very weak distinction to me... since most people would approve of political violence in some circumstances, and plenty of otherwise extremists (meaning, very far from the center and strongly opposed to the status quo) have not seen the necessity of armed revolution.

Were killed by police, not did kill the police. There's a difference.

Dead is dead.

You cross into the dangerous realm of extremism when you think that you are so convinced of your righteousness that those who get in the way of your ideas need to die.

One of my ideas is that people should not be murdered.

If I kill someone to stop him or her from murdering somebody else, does that make me an extremist?

No bombings. No armed revolution... Moderation.

and thus gandhi was not a revolutionary either, despite leading an actual political revolution. i think your definition is stupid.

I wouldnt want to insult the man

But you're okay with insulting the woman?

So the only way to be an extremist is to advocate violence?
Indeed. Otherwise you're just a lot of hot air.
So political violence is the difference between moderation and extremism?

That seems a very weak distinction to me... since most people would approve of political violence in some circumstances, and plenty of otherwise extremists (meaning, very far from the center and strongly opposed to the status quo) have not seen the necessity of armed revolution.
Most of those people are idiots.
Dead is dead.
Yes, but being killed is not the same as killing.
One of my ideas is that people should not be murdered.

If I kill someone to stop him or her from murdering somebody else, does that make me an extremist?
How sure are you that this person is going to murder?
Besides, no statement is universal. The rights to life and those associated with it are worth putting yourself into a position where you may have to kill.
and thus gandhi was not a revolutionary either, despite leading an actual political revolution. i think your definition is stupid.
A revolutionary doesn't have to be extreme.

"The anarchists want to bomb everything, so they should keep their mouths shut. They're just making things difficult for the rest of us."

exactly

Most of those people are idiots.

What does that have to do with anything?

How sure are you that this person is going to murder?

Very. Say he's actively in the process of committing the act.

Besides, no statement is universal. The rights to life and those associated with it are worth putting yourself into a position where you may have to kill.

I see. So not all violence is extremist. What kinds of violence are?

I see. So not all violence is extremist. What kinds of violence are?

Offensive rather then defensive violence most likely.

Offensive rather then defensive violence most likely.

If I use violence to overthrow a system that is actively in the process of killing people every day, is that offensive or defensive violence?

Offensive rather then defensive violence most likely.

Indeed.

If I use violence to overthrow a system that is actively in the process of killing people every day, is that offensive or defensive violence?

Hmm, thats a hard one. I would call it offensive, but justified as well.

If I use violence to overthrow a system that is actively in the process of killing people every day, is that offensive or defensive violence?

If they are actively and deliberately killing innocent people, then it is defensive, but it could easily be offensive. Assassinating political leaders, ok. Blowing up a train with civilians on it, no.

If they are actively and deliberately killing innocent people

What if the killing is not "deliberate" but simply callous - a byproduct of certain economic and social relations that benefit certain powerful people?

Too add, offensive can be defensive as well. "offense is the best form of defense"

Same as men who aren't reasonably attractive. Less sex and sex of generally poorer quality.

quality of sexual experience has nothing to do with how attractive you are.

nothing.

(as long as you are attractive to your partner)

quality of sexual experience has nothing to do with how attractive you are.

nothing.

(as long as you are attractive to your partner)
Sure it does. Attractive people tend to have more sex, and whose going to be better at sex? The people who do it more often.
What if the killing is not "deliberate" but simply callous - a byproduct of certain economic and social relations that benefit certain powerful people?
No. Callousness, while repugnant, is not nearly as bad as outright killing. There is no malice in callousness.

No. Callousness, while repugnant, is not nearly as bad as outright killing. There is no malice in callousness.

So if a person is randomly throwing around grenades for fun, it would be wrong to shoot her... assuming there is no other way to restrain her?

So if a person is randomly throwing around grenades for fun, it would be wrong to shoot her... assuming there is no other way to restrain her?

Only as a last resort.

So if a person is randomly throwing around grenades for fun, it would be wrong to shoot her... assuming there is no other way to restrain her?
If there is no other way, then yes. However, there are plenty of nonlethal methods of restraining someone.

Only as a last resort.

Of course.

To return to the point: Calling the advocacy of violence a defining feature of extremism is absurd.

It's absurd because generally extremists aren't don't justify violence any more readily than anyone else does... the ones that advocate violence advocate violence for the same reasons moderates would.

They merely believe that those reasons apply with regard to things that moderates might see as comparatively minor, or even be supportive of.

That is to say, their advocacy of violence stems from their extremist analysis... not the other way around.

There isn't any valid reason to treat people differently based upon their gender, age, or race distinctions.

That's not entirely true, but it is mostly true. I think it would be better to say that there isn't any valid reason to treat people differently based on perceived or stereotypical differences, rather than actual ones.

If the difference in treatment is based in an actual physical (or even an actual personality) difference, then it is appropriate. If it is based in, "Well, lots of women......" it is not.

Dempublicents, stop lying. There is no way I am willing to believe that you would risk going up to a group of women and try to start a conversation about football, when there is such a high chance of making a fool of yourself.

hydes, im beginning to think that you arent good with people.

when going up to a group of people you dont know, you dont shove yourself to the center by starting a new conversation about anything except maybe who you are and why you are talking to them.

when its time for you to suggest a good topic of conversation you feel out several topics until you find one that fits the group you have joined. you might try out sports, politics, the weather, celebrity gossip, whatever, until you find one that gets a good response.to leave out sports because its women or celebrity gossip because its men is foolish.

That's not entirely true, but it is mostly true. I think it would be better to say that there isn't any valid reason to treat people differently based on perceived or stereotypical differences, rather than actual ones.

If the difference in treatment is based in an actual physical (or even an actual personality) difference, then it is appropriate. If it is based in, "Well, lots of women......" it is not.I agree, though I would say that this is different than treating the woman differently because she's a woman, even if the difference only exists because she's a woman.

You are the only bigot I see.

I don't treat people differently just because they have different genitalia. I treat people as people. The fact that you would call that bigotry is absurd.

Exclusion based on ideology.

Exclusion? Exclusion of what?

As we can not treat people as individuals unti lwe know them you statement is absurd.

You aren't going to be dealing with people until you meet them, now are you?

You are simply ignoring the fact we must use assumptions to deal with the public at large...our assumptions should begin to fall away to knowledge after first contact, but it is indeed assumtions we must begin with.

Why? Is it really necessary for you to assume that a woman wants to wear makeup or that a man does not? What necessitates this? Is it really necessary to assume that a woman is not interested in sports but a man is? What necessitates this.

The only necessary distinctions are based in actual inherent biological differences - but they are pretty few and far between.

Because I assure you I will great anyone with hostility who approaches me in a familiar manner when we are not familiar.

And that is your choice. Would it matter if they were male/female/black/white/Asian/homosexual/heterosexual/etc.? Or do you not wanted to be treated with familiarity by anyone you are not yet familiar with?

But you're okay with insulting the woman?

Ouch.

Well, since I am being honest and not esposing some ideology.

Yes.

On the issue of safety I am more comfortable placing a man in danger then a woman.

I know no one will take that statement out of context since we are dealing with individuals and specific instances and not generalizations...I am the only generalizer here.

But yes, if given the choice between placing a man in danger and woman, I will place the man in danger.

That includes placing the man in greater relative danger then the woman.

If I must err, I would err on the side of keeping the woman safe.

That may be "wrong"(I dont think it can be right or wrong) but it is the most probable course of action for me.

Sure it does. Attractive people tend to have more sex, and whose going to be better at sex? The people who do it more often.


that is not true. attractive people have a wider choice of partners. that doesnt mean they have more or better sex than those who have to work harder to get laid.

hydes, im beginning to think that you arent good with people.


Ever heard of a hypothetical situation? I generally wouldn't go up to a bunch of people and start immediately talking about football, it was just a bloody example.


to leave out sports because its women or celebrity gossip because its men is foolish.

It's only foolish to you because it is has no biological backing or individual backing. It is the most stupidly naive thing to actually think that starting a conversation about football amongst a group of women and a group of men will provoke the same reaction generally. You really need to start living in reality.

You really need to start living in reality.

You need to start listening to what they're saying.

The argument is not that certain traits and interests are not more prominent among men than women, or vice versa... but that because such generalizations are tenuous, behaviors should be tailored to the individual case rather than to the gender of the group.

Why? Is it really necessary for you to assume that a woman wants to wear makeup or that a man does not? What necessitates this? Is it really necessary to assume that a woman is not interested in sports but a man is? What necessitates this.

The only necessary distinctions are based in actual inherent biological differences - but they are pretty few and far between.


People generalise for a reason. I don't go up to a bunch of weightlifting men and talk about make up, since it is very likely that they will not be interested in that. There is no inherent biological backing for this, but it is still logical not to do something like that.

Ever heard of a hypothetical situation? I generally wouldn't go up to a bunch of people and start immediately talking about football, it was just a bloody example.



It's only foolish to you because it is has no biological backing or individual backing. It is the most stupidly naive thing to actually think that starting a conversation about football amongst a group of women and a group of men will provoke the same reaction generally. You really need to start living in reality.


why insist on an unrealistic example then?

when talking to people, one needs a variety of interests in order to be a good conversationalist. it doesnt matter if the group is male or female.

You need to start listening to what they're saying.

The argument is not that certain traits and interests are not more prominent among men than women, or vice versa... but that because such generalizations are tenuous, behaviors should be tailored to the individual case rather than to the gender of the group.

Making an assumption of what their general interests are based only on what they have been saying to you in the last five minutes can be just as valid as assuming that the person does not like to wear makeup because they are a man for example.

Edit: Wow thats bad grammar, but i'm too tired to change it. Sory soheran ;)

What about her behavior relates to her feminism?


Perhaps one of the central problems in this thread is a conflation of feminism, the ideology, and "feminists", a perceived identity.

After all, even feminists can behave obnoxiously and believe in nutty things, in addition to their feminism. Not to say that all (or even most) do.

when talking to people, one needs a variety of interests in order to be a good conversationalist. it doesnt matter if the group is male or female.

But this thread is not about good and bad ways to start conversations. All I am saying is this: trying to avoid talking about football within first meeting a women is not sexist just a well founded generalisation based on experience aimed at reducing the risk of making a fool out of your self etc....

that is not true. attractive people have a wider choice of partners. that doesnt mean they have more or better sex than those who have to work harder to get laid.
I think it pretty much means they have more.
Of course.

To return to the point: Calling the advocacy of violence a defining feature of extremism is absurd.

It's absurd because generally extremists aren't don't justify violence any more readily than anyone else does... the ones that advocate violence advocate violence for the same reasons moderates would.

They merely believe that those reasons apply with regard to things that moderates might see as comparatively minor, or even be supportive of.

That is to say, their advocacy of violence stems from their extremist analysis... not the other way around.
That's not the way I see it at all. The self-righteousness and the inability to see ones enemy as a real, feeling human being is inherent in extreme political opinions. These traits lend themselves very easily to violence or at least the advocation of it, and in my studies of history and personal observations about the world, if there's one thing that corrupts a movement, it is violence. Once you take a human life in cold blood, what else could you do that could possibly be worse?

I don't treat people differently just because they have different genitalia. I treat people as people. The fact that you would call that bigotry is absurd. by your absolute disdain for anything to contrary of your opinion I would call it an astute observation, not absurd.



Exclusion? Exclusion of what?

OK, then aside from my sexist prediliction to treat men with less courtesy then women(based on your definition of courtesy), and by your supposition a purely sexist bias(a bias I do not deny off hand) you would still be oerfectly willing to be friendly and personable with me and treat as friend, descently. As well as not attempt to alter my behavior to conform to yours?

Because if you answer NO, I mean that exclusion.
The exclusion of people who treat women as equals, believe women to as capable of men in just about every way barring certain physical limitations which are not 100% correct because not all men are at optimum performance and not all women are at the lowest performance....would you decide to treat me deffirently then everyone else because I diagree with feminism?
That Exclusion.
Because I do not support the idea of a less intelligent woman, a stay at home woman(though I strongly support the idea of a stay at home parent--either or would be just fine), or of an uneducated woman.




You aren't going to be dealing with people until you meet them, now are you?


I deal with people everyday I dont know. People I dont get introduced to, or exchange names.
Social interaction is far beyond the people we "Know" or do you introduce yourself and get to know every person you hold the door open for?
You carry groceries for? Make sure they get safely to their car?
You nod to in passing
You bump in a crowded room

Because for me all of those situations require a different response based on any number of details that include gender.

I also given the area I live have to factor ethnic identity and culture...is the woman I am passing wearing a veil? If so I give her greater passing room--this is a very occurance in my area.

Yes, it is not based soley on gender...but what really is when the situation is brought down from general hypotheticals to actual reality?

Would I slip a door in front of a 90 year old man? Of course not.
Would I slip a door in front of group of giggling tramps being loud and obnoxious...of course I would.

As I said there are a thousand different factors...I am simply being honest when I say I factor a person's gender into how I deal with them.


Is it really necessary for you to assume that a woman wants to wear makeup or that a man does not?
Um, yeah. Basing that assumption on the law of averages given who purchases the most make-up only a fool would assume otherwise.

Is it really necessary to assume that a woman is not interested in sports but a man is?
Yup, that would be those damned statistics again, because if I see a woman walking down the street I am going to give her the credit of being the average woman.

I havnt an exceptional human being in my life, just people.
I give the credit for being people, and to that end I know enough to play the odds.



The only necessary distinctions are based in actual inherent biological differences - but they are pretty few and far between. that depends on how you define any number of things.
You and already see courtesy in two very different lights, so I would hardly allow you to tell me what is necessary or not, i certainly wouldnt expect you to let me tell you what was necessary for your line of thinking..of course that is the difference between you and I.

I am not telling you that being you is wrong.
I am defending my right to be myself to you, I havnt not asked you to provide such a defense.
Its a shame you dont see that.


And that is your choice. Would it matter if they were male/female/black/white/Asian/homosexual/heterosexual/etc.? Or do you not wanted to be treated with familiarity by anyone you are not yet familiar with?

Absolutely no difference what so ever.

It's only foolish to you because it is has no biological backing or individual backing. It is the most stupidly naive thing to actually think that starting a conversation about football amongst a group of women and a group of men will provoke the same reaction generally. You really need to start living in reality.

I am living in reality. And in that reality, talking about sports generally invokes the same reaction in men and women. Some of them get excited, some are "meh", and some stare blankly. But I've never actually observed a gender difference on this.

People generalise for a reason. I don't go up to a bunch of weightlifting men and talk about make up, since it is very likely that they will not be interested in that. There is no inherent biological backing for this, but it is still logical not to do something like that.

If they were wearing makeup, you might?

On the other hand, you probably wouldn't go up to a bunch of men (or women) who looked out of shape and start talking about weightlifting. That's a matter of treating someone as an individual, rather than as a member of a group. Someone who looks fit is overwhelmingly likely to be someone who works out. That's a topic of conversation that might interest them. Someone who is wearing makeup (and looks nice) might be someone you would ask for make-up tips, while you would be unlikely to start talking to anyone (male or female) who was not wearing makeup (or who you have never seen wear it) about makeup.

Originally Posted by Free Outer Eugenia
"The anarchists want to bomb everything, so they should keep their mouths shut. They're just making things difficult for the rest of us."

exactly
You like my eaxample of an absurd strawman statement?:)

Sure it does. Attractive people tend to have more sex, and whose going to be better at sex? The people who do it more often. You actually managed to be dead wrong at least twice in two sentences. Good job:p
1) Physical 'attractiveness' (which is relative anyway) has never been proven to be the single most important factor for increased sexual activity in humans. It is one of many factors that contribute to an increased chance of sex.

2) More sex and better sex are not necessarily the same thing.

All of this is generally not understood by most high school freshmen though.

I am living in reality. And in that reality, talking about sports generally invokes the same reaction in men and women. Some of them get excited, some are "meh", and some stare blankly. But I've never actually observed a gender difference on this.


Well the situation is certainly not like that where I live. I was just using it as an example. Lets just use more general logic. Say femals are more likely to be into X, and males are much less likely to be into X. Lets also assume that to talk to a bunch of males who are not into X, about X is very embaressing. Would it not be logical to try and avoid talking to males about X, since the risk of embaressment is too great? And thus how is that sexist?

I would call it an astute observation.

"Ass toot" is right:p

1) Physical 'attractiveness' (which is relative anyway) has never been proven to be the single most important factor for increased sexual activity in humans. It is one of many factors that contribute to an increased chance of sex.
No, but anyone with eyes can see that it's the most important. A good looking person can be stupid, poor and a right bastard/bitch and still get laid more often than even the most charming of uglies.
2) More sex and better sex are not necessarily the same thing.
If you do more of something, you'll probably get better at it.

You like my eaxample of an absurd strawman statement?:)


are you going to tell me you have never had the violent early history of anarchism thrown in your face as if you were going to end up assassinating someone?

start a thread on anarchism, ill be happy to do it.

"Ass toot" is right:p

How very clever. You must be so proud of your rapier like wit. The smiley is especially indicative of a great intellect.

are you going to tell me you have never had the violent early history of anarchism thrown in your face as if you were going to end up assassinating someone?

start a thread on anarchism, ill be happy to do it.Here we go again:rolleyes:

you mean during the course of a few decades 100 years ago? Even in the so-called heyday of 'anarchist terror,' the anarchists were no more violent then any other group. And looking at the list of butchers, tyrants and mass murderers who were the 'victims' of these 'crimes', you would have trouble finding worthier candidates for such a fate. The executions of war criminals are never raised as examples of the crimes of capitalism and the state, but such acts are the only 'atrocities' that anyone can attribute to anarchists.

at the list of butchers, tyrants and mass murderers who were the 'victims' of these 'crimes'

This is what I'm talking about. It's like you don't even value them as human beings.

Here we go again:rolleyes:

you mean during the course of a few decades 100 years ago? Even in the so-called heyday of 'anarchist terror,' the anarchists were no more violent then any other group. And looking at the list of butchers, tyrants and mass murderers who were the 'victims' of these 'crimes', you would have trouble finding worthier candidates for such a fate. The executions of war criminals are never raised as examples of the crimes of capitalism and the state, but such acts are the only 'atrocities' that anyone can attribute to anarchists.

lol

so you are saying that your "strawman example" really was an excellent analogy to the way people like rush limbaugh use a few out of context outrageous feminist quotes to slam all feminists.

im sorry to still be laughing at you, but i wasnt try to diss anarchism but to show that it really was a good example.

which it was.

This is what I'm talking about. It's like you don't even value them as human beings.Put your strawman away, Edgar. I certainly do value them as human beings. But their actions made them butchers and tyrants. And to single out a group that killed a small number of these while this very class of butcher was murdering millions? You seem to be ignoring the bulk of my statement so I will reiterate:

you mean during the course of a few decades 100 years ago? Even in the so-called heyday of 'anarchist terror,' the anarchists were no more violent then any other group. And looking at the list of butchers, tyrants and mass murderers who were the 'victims' of these 'crimes', you would have trouble finding worthier candidates for such a fate. The executions of war criminals are never raised as examples of the crimes of capitalism and the state, but such acts are the only 'atrocities' that anyone can attribute to anarchists.

you mean during the course of a few decades 100 years ago? Even in the so-called heyday of 'anarchist terror,' the anarchists were no more violent then any other group. And looking at the list of butchers, tyrants and mass murderers who were the 'victims' of these 'crimes', you would have trouble finding worthier candidates for such a fate. The executions of war criminals are never raised as examples of the crimes of capitalism and the state, but such acts are the only 'atrocities' that anyone can attribute to anarchists.

People that had nothing to do with any butchering died in bombings, and anarchists in Eastern Europe still commit such acts.

No one is any more worthy of death than anyone else, no matter what they've done.

A revolutionary doesn't have to be extreme.

in the social and political realms, yes, they do. revolution is never a moderate course, nor is it favored by moderates.

No one is any more worthy of death than anyone else, no matter what they've done.

that's clearly and trivially false. crazy pacifist extremists...

No one is any more worthy of death than anyone else, no matter what they've done.If you truly hold such noble sentiments, then you must hate the organized death machine that is the state and its armies more then anything else. Which would make you an anarchist.

But then it is not so much a question of 'what they've done' but of what they've done and what they're doing. Would you not kill Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin or Dr. Mengele in the midst of their crimes? How could you condemn anyone for doing so? What makes the life of such a creature more precious then that of his victims? What makes inaction that allows mass murder to continue ethically superior to action that seeks to end the mass murder even at the cost of the mass murderer's life? An Anarchist would never lock up a murderer and then kill him. It is only when the murderer cannot be disarmed otherwise that he must regrettably be killed.

that's clearly and trivially false. crazy pacifist extremists...

I'm not a pacifist. I just value human life. That's not to say that sometimes death is not necessary, but it is always a tragedy, and is never something to celebrate or excuse.

I'm not a pacifist. I just value human life. That's not to say that sometimes death is not necessary, but it is always a tragedy, and is never something to celebrate or excuse.A very anarchist sentiment.

I'm not a pacifist. I just value human life. That's not to say that sometimes death is not necessary, but it is always a tragedy, and is never something to celebrate or excuse.

if it is ever morally necessary to kill someone (or even just morally permissible), then it must be the case that one person is more worthy of death than another. that's just what words mean.

If you truly hold such noble sentiments, then you must hate the organized death machine that is the state and its armies more then anything else. Which would make you an anarchist.
I don't hate. At all.
I do strongly dislike all existing states and armies, but I don't think that the people running those institutions are unnecessarily evil. They are human, and most believe what they are doing is right.
I am not an anarchist, however because as long as we're talking about utopias, I would much rather prefer a world united into one, indivisible state emphasizing the right of all to pursue happiness.
But then it is not so much a question of 'what they've done' but of what they've done and what they're doing. Would you not kill Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin or Dr. Mengele in the midst of their crimes? How could you condemn anyone for doing so? What makes the life of such a creature more precious then that of his victims? What makes inaction that allows mass murder to continue ethically superior to action that seeks to end the mass murder even at the cost of the mass murderer's life?
If it would save more lives, than they should be killed, but not because their lives are worth less but only to save the lives of others. Their death is still a tragedy, even more so because of the way they chose to live and because they will never have a chance to atone.
An Anarchist would never lock up a murderer and then kill him. It is only when the murderer cannot be disarmed otherwise that he must regrettably be killed.
You presume to speak for all anarchists? Cute.

Disempower women? No, not really. I would say the continued emphasis of post-modernism in radical feminism makes it hard for feminism to accomplish anything, and the well-nigh Freudian obsession with sex tends to alienate natural male allies. I would also say that radical feminism has had some very bad pr, but that's more from a practical rather than a theoretical standpoint.

But disempower women, not really. Radical feminism's basic claim, that there are social structures within society that 1) disempower women, and 2) must be rearranged for the original goals of first and second-wave feminism of true political equality to be achieved are pretty much accepted facts, even by people who normally wouldn't call themselves feminist to save Jesus.

Women not being treated equally is disempowering. How about that.

by your absolute disdain for anything to contrary of your opinion I would call it an astute observation, not absurd.

No, it's pretty absurd. Apparently, because I have disdain for the way you teach your daughters to treat people, that means I have "absolute disdain for anything to contrary of my opinion," or whatever.

OK, then aside from my sexist prediliction to treat men with less courtesy then women(based on your definition of courtesy), and by your supposition a purely sexist bias(a bias I do not deny off hand) you would still be oerfectly willing to be friendly and personable with me and treat as friend, descently. As well as not attempt to alter my behavior to conform to yours?

Of course I would treat you decently, just as I would anyone else I met. Would we be friends? I doubt it. Sounds like our world views are a bit too different for that.

Because if you answer NO, I mean that exclusion.
The exclusion of people who treat women as equals,

You've already admitted that you don't treat women as equals. You treat them differently based on their genitalia.

would you decide to treat me deffirently then everyone else because I diagree with feminism?

I would only treat you differently if it were pertinent to the situation. Of course, you seem to be trying awfully hard to prove yourself to be a feminist, except for a few exceptions.

I deal with people everyday I dont know. People I dont get introduced to, or exchange names.
Social interaction is far beyond the people we "Know" or do you introduce yourself and get to know every person you hold the door open for?
You carry groceries for? Make sure they get safely to their car?
You nod to in passing
You bump in a crowded room

Because for me all of those situations require a different response based on any number of details that include gender

I can think of very little that needs to change with any of these because of gender. You don't know them, but you do actually meet them. You do see an individual, rather than a statistic. If not, that is your loss.

As I said there are a thousand different factors...I am simply being honest when I say I factor a person's gender into how I deal with them.

But why? Have you ever sat down and really thought about it? Is it just because someone told you to when you were little?

Um, yeah. Basing that assumption on the law of averages given who purchases the most make-up only a fool would assume otherwise.

You shouldn't assume either. Any given man on the street might like makeup. Any given woman on the street might as well. If a person is actually wearing some, that adds to the chances that they are, at the very least, somewhat knowledgeable about it.

Why would you need to make the assumption in the first place?

Yup, that would be those damned statistics again, because if I see a woman walking down the street I am going to give her the credit of being the average woman.

The so-called "average woman" doesn't exist. Any given woman will probably have some "average" traits. Any given man will have some "average" traits. And each of them, unless they are actually out of the ordinary, will have traits that are not "average".

You and already see courtesy in two very different lights, so I would hardly allow you to tell me what is necessary or not, i certainly wouldnt expect you to let me tell you what was necessary for your line of thinking..of course that is the difference between you and I.

No, that isn't the difference between you and I. I'm not telling you what you think. I'm telling you what I think.

And, in the end, we don't see courtesy in two different lights. The difference is that I think we should be equally courteous to everyone, rather than choosing who to extend certain courtesies to based on their gender.

Out of curiosity, how would you treat a male-to-female transsexual? Would you open the door for her? Would you walk her to her car?

I am not telling you that being you is wrong.

I am not telling you that being you is wrong. I'm telling you that I believe the actions you take towards others are wrong.

I am defending my right to be myself to you, I havnt not asked you to provide such a defense.
Its a shame you dont see that.

I do see that. Of course, I don't have anything to defend. I don't treat people differently based on arbitrary characteristics.

If you had come into the thread and said, "I hold the door open for white people, and I teach my kids to do it. But I tell them never to open the door for black people," would you expect people to sit back and hold their objections just because it was "you being you"?

Well the situation is certainly not like that where I live. I was just using it as an example. Lets just use more general logic. Say femals are more likely to be into X, and males are much less likely to be into X. Lets also assume that to talk to a bunch of males who are not into X, about X is very embaressing. Would it not be logical to try and avoid talking to males about X, since the risk of embaressment is too great? And thus how is that sexist?

If X is something that people - male or female - find embarrassing to talk about, it probably isn't appropriate for polite company - at least not when the company consists of people you don't know well. Of course, most of the things I can think of that men, in general, would be embarrassed to talk about involve female biology (feminine products and the like).

This is the issue I have with all the things you're throwing out here - you seem to think that bringing up any topic of conversation that others may not be interested in is going to "make you look like a fool" or embarrass people. As a general rule, it only becomes foolish if you persist even though others could care less.

"I support x radical position."

In what way does a statement like that indicate that a person is not looking for a meaningful dialogue, or to rationally convince people?

I'm a radical... on issues of gender, economic class, race, political organization, war, and a host of other things. Yet I have made plenty of attempts to do both, and have had at least some success.

(sorry I did'nt answer earlier, had to sleep)

This is where its starts to get a bit murky for me. You say your a radical, but that is a subjective opinion. As an example, what might be radical for one nation might seem like common sense for another.

Radicals are generally violent (either physically or verbally) bunch that seek the extreme. Whereas as a moderate although might see the 'extreme' as the perfect answer, they realise that people must be convinced to move in that direction slowly but surely.

sorry early in the morning here, so the brains still a bit slow

Except when it was "extreme" to believe that women are equal to men, or that slaves should be freed whatever the desires of their masters, or that the separation of church and state is a good thing, or that killing people because they don't share your religious views is wrong, or that entrusting a hereditary minority to power is unjust and foolish, and so on and on and on....

Yesterday's extremist is today's moderate.

Yes its the extremists who call for this or that. But its the moderates that make the laws, its the moderates that find the middle ground, etc...

That doesn't follow.

Yes, policy changes tend to be enacted by moderates... this is in the nature of the term. After the anarchist revolution, the moderates will be expropriating factories and dismantling the state apparatus... because the political center would have shifted significantly.

But public opinion tends to be shifted, at least initially, by people who challenge it, loudly, boldly, and, yes, radically.

Namely, extremists.

curious, do you have examples? I cannot honestly think of an example where extremists achieved change

(sorry I did'nt answer earlier, had to sleep)

Don't worry about it.

This is where its starts to get a bit murky for me. You say your a radical, but that is a subjective opinion. As an example, what might be radical for one nation might seem like common sense for another.

Yes, radicalism is relative to the political center, which is not absolute.

This is a primary reason that you cannot say "radicals are necessarily this" or "radicals are necessarily that" - all political positions could be radical ones depending on the society in which they are expressed.

Radicals are generally violent (either physically or verbally) bunch that seek the extreme.

When radicals advocate violence, we tend to do so for the same reasons anybody else would advocate violence.

We just think those reasons apply to cases that moderates don't think they apply to... because we have a radical analysis of those cases.

Whereas as a moderate although might see the 'extreme' as the perfect answer, they realise that people must be convinced to move in that direction slowly but surely.

Again, while there is a "means" difference between moderates and radicals, it is not (usually) because they have a fundamentally different conception of which means are appropriate and which means aren't.

It is because their analysis of the present society, and their understanding of the ideal, differ.

A radical feminist, for instance, sees patriarchy as a fundamental aspect of our present society and culture... and as such does not think that we can simply add "and women" and expect equality to ensue. Rather, fundamental paradigms of gender must be challenged, and because gender is so essential to social relations of all sorts, society as a whole must undergo radical changes in order to fully liberate women (and, indeed, men as well).

We do not advocate radical change because we like radicalism in and of itself, or because we want attention, or anything of the sort; we do so because we believe that the goal (equality) necessitates it.

curious, do you have examples? I cannot honestly think of an example where extremists achieved change

Feminism would be the obvious case, since it is, after all, what this thread is about.

To deny that extremists have achieved change is to deny that intentional radical social change has happened, ever, and that is nonsense.

But its the moderates that make the laws,

The problem is that you are still holding to this absolute distinction between "extremist" and "moderate."

"Moderates" only pass substantive laws that make real changes after the extremists have already laid the groundwork... and indeed, were it not for the extremists, the "moderates" would not be seen as moderate at all.

Imagine proposing the Equal Rights Amendment in 1790.

its the moderates that find the middle ground

The "middle ground" is relative, too.

Its position is highly influenced by extremists... it could perhaps even be said that it is defined by them.

After all, the middle is in between two extremes.

As for the pace of change that is desired, this too is a function of how serious the problem is deemed to be.

Only if the problem itself is downplayed can the call for immediate, swift change be neglected... and the radicalism is contained in the emphasis on the seriousness of the problem, not the pace in and of itself.

That is why it is incoherent to insist that the extremist's failure is his or her inability to recognize the wisdom of gradual change. To make this argument is to miss the point entirely.

Would you ask a person to "moderately" rescue his or her child from a burning house... even if proceeding slowly might mean fewer burns?

Well, I'm not sure if they're still around, but I know of the misandrist group, and they certainly give feminism a bad reputation, which is even worse given that they aren't feminists. I consider a feminist a gender-equality advocate like myself, so called becuase women are obviously far more hurt by sexist institutions. A female supremacist is as much an enemy of feminism as a male supremacist.

curious, do you have examples? I cannot honestly think of an example where extremists achieved change
Really? I bet you can think of at least one if you try.

Hell, you can even choose to look ONLY at the bad changes, if you want. For instance, a bunch of extremists flying planes into buildings. Shitloads of change from that, right?

I am living in reality. And in that reality, talking about sports generally invokes the same reaction in men and women. Some of them get excited, some are "meh", and some stare blankly. But I've never actually observed a gender difference on this.

Me neither. Maybe it was once the case that all men liked sports and all women didn't, but it certainly hasn't been that way in my lifetime.

I've never noticed a social penalty for this, either. I follow sports a bit more that my boyfriend does (though I wouldn't even consider myself a real "sports fan"), so when sports come up in casual conversation I am more likely to put my .02$ in. But nobody seems to care. Nobody even remarks on our genders, because...well, why would they? Why would anybody assume that having a penis means somebody likes sports, and having a vagina means they don't? That's like assuming that only blondes like water-skiing. Weird.

Really? I bet you can think of at least one if you try.

Hell, you can even choose to look ONLY at the bad changes, if you want. For instance, a bunch of extremists flying planes into buildings. Shitloads of change from that, right?

Remember, that for many on this forum, that incident was no big deal, and we shouldn't have reacted at all, because some here think that we deserved it, and should have simply shrugged our shoulders and ignored it.

Yes, he would use football to break the ice witha group of men as sports is a good ice breaker with men.

Culturally women are not as interested in sprots as men, its called playing the odds.

Profiling based on demographic criteria, its only sexist because that is a buzz word for it.

It also an absurd point.

Profiling based on race, gender, age, economic status, is very effective.
Not perfect but effective.

But ooohhh its sexist. Weak.
(Bolds mine)

Gendered profiling isn't just sexist, it's also lazy and insulting.

Want to break the ice? Ask people about themselves. I've never had it fail. That way, you can find out about them, and choose a topic that they will actually give a shit about.

That's the real thing about most sexism: it's for the lazy. It's for people who can't be bothered to actually listen to anybody else. People who just want to be able to eyeball another person and go, "Oh, titties, this person likes shoes and makeup and Lifetime Movies" or "Beard! This person must like sports and beef and action movies!"

For crying out loud, at least put in enough effort to, like, look at the person's CLOTHES or something. Read their freaking t-shirt. A girl in a Rangers jersey is quite a bit more likely to care about sports than a bloke in a sweater vest, right? This kind of "profiling" is still lazy as hell, but at least it's one step up from using a person's gender to decide what their interests must be.

I dont have to tell a man to let the door go, I tell my daughters to let the door the door go.

I have never had a man hold a door for me if I wasnt carrying a load.
If one did I would simply reach out and take hold of the door before passing through, hence holding the door for myself. I would however, not, ever, pass through the door first.
All the door-holding bullshit is so freaking funny. There are actually guys who seem to think they are showing "respect" by being flagrantly sexist. There are actually human beings who think they deserve BONUS POINTS for being rude to half the population.

If I'm the first person to the door, I hold it open, either as I pass through it (in the case of unencumbered strangers behind me) or by stepping to the side and letting somebody else go ahead of me (in the case of my own party, or any encumbered stranger).

Where I come from, this is basic courtesy. Nobody expects praise for it. It's just what you do. Turning door-holding into some warped little power struggle is just sad.

Remember, that for many on this forum, that incident was no big deal, and we shouldn't have reacted at all, because some here think that we deserved it, and should have simply shrugged our shoulders and ignored it.
:rolleyes: Hijack and lie, all in one tidy package.

Please, feel free to go start a fresh thread in which you quote the "many" people on this forum who say 9/11 was "no big deal." It will get a lot of attention.

(Bolds mine)

Gendered profiling isn't just sexist, it's also lazy and insulting.

Want to break the ice? Ask people about themselves. I've never had it fail. That way, you can find out about them, and choose a topic that they will actually give a shit about.

That's the real thing about most sexism: it's for the lazy. It's for people who can't be bothered to actually listen to anybody else. People who just want to be able to eyeball another person and go, "Oh, titties, this person likes shoes and makeup and Lifetime Movies" or "Beard! This person must like sports and beef and action movies!"

For crying out loud, at least put in enough effort to, like, look at the person's CLOTHES or something. Read their freaking t-shirt. A girl in a Rangers jersey is quite a bit more likely to care about sports than a bloke in a sweater vest, right? This kind of "profiling" is still lazy as hell, but at least it's one step up from using a person's gender to decide what their interests must be.


All the door-holding bullshit is so freaking funny. There are actually guys who seem to think they are showing "respect" by being flagrantly sexist. There are actually human beings who think they deserve BONUS POINTS for being rude to half the population.

If I'm the first person to the door, I hold it open, either as I pass through it (in the case of unencumbered strangers behind me) or by stepping to the side and letting somebody else go ahead of me (in the case of my own party, or any encumbered stranger).

Where I come from, this is basic courtesy. Nobody expects praise for it. It's just what you do. Turning door-holding into some warped little power struggle is just sad.

Profiling is called using statistical data that is common about a specific demographic to your advantage in acessing an unknown personality...or using the data already at hand. I am not interested if you think it is lazy or rude, I dont do it to please others.

Where, did I ask for praise...reading what you want?
I dont expect praise.
But I see your point, holding the door for a woman is very rude.
Do you see how stupid that sounds?
Telling me I am being rude for holding the door for women because YOU dont like why I do it...that is one of the most self centered things I have ever read.
Back to this praise thing, since you are the only person I have read to bring it up...as i didnt suggest courtesy deserved praise in any of my posts am I to take that to mean you are seeking some praise because you follow in lock step with the "Politically Correct" line of thought. While I follow some barbaric concept of femininity and masculinity, where in any given situation what would offend a man's sensibilities will not offend a woman's and vice versa.

It seems to me that none of the people here(excluding Soheran) are capable of treating this for what is, opinion...the way you do things like this is not right or wrong--it is the way you do things...and until you break the law that's all it is. If you are stupid enough to think me holding the door for a woman is rude, then I pity all those unfortunate enough to suffer your presence in person.

I dont agree with feminism, because like most of the people in this thread it's ideological foundation is that of oppression.

I think people should be free(with in the bounds of the law) to act as courteous or uncourteous as they see fit.

If a Klansman holds a door open for me, he is trying to be polite...I dont care how I might find the rest of opinions. The fact that I wont pass through until the good sumaritan passes through first...is me trying to be polite...and no amount of ignorance on the part of people like will change that fact.

I see courtesy for what is, I dont care what brandname it goes under.

I am not telling you that being you is wrong. I'm telling you that I believe the actions you take towards others are wrong.


Fair enough.

DO you see it as malicious?
Which is really more my point. Many people can disagree over what courtesy is, all cultures are different. But on certain fundamental levels one reaches a point where malign is malign.

I dont deny being sexist, I dont see anywhere one could suggest I am trying to be feminist...I loathe the concept, it is trite, vain, and self serving.

However, I dont believe that particular brand of being sexist is harmful to women, I teach my daughters to box, my son to dance, my daughters understand how important science and math are to their futures, and that marriage should be based on mutual love and respect...not some strange "need" for a man...and the opposite for my sons(obviously)...I simply want them to expect a certain amount of courtesy from a man, they are not men and they should not be treated like on of the boys--they deserve more respect then that. As my wife does, and my mother, and so forth and so on.
I two dollar crackhead whore would get a "yes, ma'am" and the door held for her after I gave her some change...and yes based strictly on genitalia.

Is that really so bad? Because I simply dont see how tailoring my particular brand of courtesy is harmful.

Profiling is called using statistical data that is common about a specific demographic to your advantage in acessing an unknown personality...or using the data already at hand. I am not interested if you think it is lazy or rude, I dont do it to please others.



Where, did I ask for praise...reading what you want?
I dont expect praise.

You expect to be permitted to view yourself as equality-minded even though you admittedly aren't.


But I see your point, holding the door for a woman is very rude.
Do you see how stupid that sounds?

Refusing to hold a door for a man because he is male is very rude.

Do you see how dense you have to be to miss the point?


Telling me I am being rude for holding the door for women because YOU dont like why I do it...that is one of the most self centered things I have ever read.

Actually, I was saying you are rude for refusing to hold the door for people simply because they are male, or insisting that female persons let go of a door simply because they are female. It is your sexism and self-importance which are rude, not the few times that you do decide somebody is worthy of your powerful door-holding skills.


Back to this praise thing, since you are the only person I have read to bring it up...as i didnt suggest courtesy deserved praise in any of my posts am I to take that to mean you are seeking some praise because you follow in lock step with the "Politically Correct" line of thought.

Read my posts and answer your own question.

I don't believe anybody (myself included) deserves praise for behaving like a grown up. There's a certain minimum standard of conduct that I hold all people to, regardless of gender, and meeting that bare minimum does not earn you a freaking cookie.


While I follow some barbaric concept of femininity and masculinity, where in any given situation what would offend a man's sensibilities will not offend a woman's and vice versa.

If you believe in "femininity" and "masculinity" as defined by our current culture, then you're not a barbarian, you're just a dupe. That's your business. Unless you choose to bring it up in a discussion on a public forum. In which case it becomes everybody's business, because you brought it up for discussion.


It seems to me that none of the people here(excluding Soheran) are capable of treating this for what is, opinion...the way you do things like this is not right or wrong--it is the way you do things...and until you break the law that's all it is. If you are stupid enough to think me holding the door for a woman is rude, then I pity all those unfortunate enough to suffer your presence in person.

Of course it's opinion. So? I can talk about another person's opinions. There are plenty of bullshit opinions. The opinion that black people are stupider than white people is a bullshit opinion, for instance, one which can be easily addressed by citing reality.


I dont agree with feminism, because like most of the people in this thread it's ideological foundation is that of oppression.

Yes, the social and political equality of the sexes is "oppression." We've all heard this cry many, many times before.


I think people should be free(with in the bounds of the law) to act as courteous or uncourteous as they see fit.

Please quote where I advocate legal measures to enforce courtesy. Either that, or apologize for your strawman tactic.


If a Klansman holds a door open for me, he is trying to be polite...I dont care how I might find the rest of opinions. The fact that I wont pass through until the good sumaritan passes through first...is me trying to be polite...and no amount of ignorance on the part of people like will change that fact.

I see courtesy for what is, I dont care what brandname it goes under.
You clearly DO, though. You tell your daughter to let go of the door. You refuse to hold doors for male human beings because they are male. You are not seeing courtesy for what it is. You are allowing your personal sexism to over-ride courtesy. In the grand scheme of things, that's no big deal. But it's best you own up to it instead of lying to yourself (or embarrassing yourself by trying to lie to people around here).

I dont deny being sexist, I dont see anywhere one could suggest I am trying to be feminist...I loathe the concept, it is trite, vain, and self serving.

You loathe the idea of the social and political equality of the sexes? You loathe the idea that male and female human beings have the same inherent value and deserve equal levels of respect?

Specifically, what is the concept that you loathe?

However, I dont believe that particular brand of being sexist is harmful to women, I teach my daughters to box, my son to dance, my daughters understand how important science and math are to their futures, and that marriage should be based on mutual love and respect...not some strange "need" for a man...and the opposite for my sons(obviously)...I simply want them to expect a certain amount of courtesy from a man, they are not men and they should not be treated like on of the boys--they deserve more respect then that.

So you teach your daughters that they deserve more respect than men, and you teach your sons that they are less deserving of respect than women.

Exactly why is this a good thing? Why should you teach your children that they are permitted to behave less courteously toward ANYBODY? Why not simply expect them to show respect to all people? How would it be rude or self-serving or vain for a person to show respect for all other people?


As my wife does, and my mother, and so forth and so on.
I two dollar crackhead whore would get a "yes, ma'am" and the door held for her after I gave her some change...and yes based strictly on genitalia.

Is that really so bad?

Of course not. What is bad is that you don't extend that respect to ALL people.

Seriously, what you are saying is absolutely no different than if you were advocating that white people be treated with more respect than black people. It is absolutely no different than if you taught your kids that blondes deserve to have doors held for them, but redheads do not.

Holding a door for a white person isn't rude. Stating that all white people deserve doors held for them, while all black people do not, is rude. Get it?

Is that really so bad? Yup, as far as I'm concerned, because you are teaching your children that some human beings are worth less than others based entirely upon innate characteristics that the individual has no control over whatsoever. Devaluing your fellow human beings is lousy, in my opinion, and teaching your kids to devalue other people is worse.


Because I simply dont see how tailoring my particular brand of courtesy is harmful.
Sure you do. That's why you're so defensive about it.

But I see your point, holding the door for a woman is very rude.
Do you see how stupid that sounds?

Good thing no one has said it but you, then, eh? It isn't holding a door open for a woman that is rude. It is rude that you will let it slam in the face of a man, just because he is a man. In this case, it is the male half of the population that you are being rude to.

I dont agree with feminism, because like most of the people in this thread it's ideological foundation is that of oppression.

What an idiotic statement. The ideological foundation of feminism is the exact opposite of oppression. It is that all people, regardless of gender, should be allowed to be themselves. They shouldn't be expected or pushed to fit some arbitrary gender roles simply because they happen to have one set of genitalia or the other.

I think people should be free(with in the bounds of the law) to act as courteous or uncourteous as they see fit.[

And no one is arguing with this. But that isn't going to change the fact that we're going to see you as rude as hell when you let a door slam in the face of a man simply because he is a man, or assume that a woman can't lift something simply because she is a woman.

Fair enough.

DO you see it as malicious?

Hard to tell. A few weeks ago, I would have said yes. But I've recently realized that a lot of the bigoted things people do - and the viewpoints they hold - are not really malicious or even intentional at all. They are simply a product of that person having been told something and never having really questioned it.

I dont deny being sexist, I dont see anywhere one could suggest I am trying to be feminist...I loathe the concept, it is trite, vain, and self serving.

You keep stating all of the ways in which you think women are equal - thus expressing feminist viewpoints. You just don't take that to its logical conclusion.


Meanwhile, I really would like an answer to the question I asked earlier. How would you act towards a male-to-female transsexual? Would you open doors for her? Would you walk her to her car for her protection?

Hard to tell. A few weeks ago, I would have said yes. But I've recently realized that a lot of the bigoted things people do - and the viewpoints they hold - are not really malicious or even intentional at all. They are simply a product of that person having been told something and never having really questioned it.



You keep stating all of the ways in which you think women are equal - thus expressing feminist viewpoints. You just don't take that to its logical conclusion.

These two things very often go together, in my experience.

Lots of people simply never bother to think about sexism except when they are forced to do so by circumstance. So they end up with this patch-work feminism, where they believe women and men are equal in some areas because they can't think of any reason why not, but they haven't actually processed WHY sexism is BS in the big picture. They still hold to a bunch of sexist ideas because they either haven't yet confronted them at all, or have noticed the sexism but have also concluded that they personally benefit from it. Because they've never looked at the big picture of sexism, they've never internalized why it's bullshit in general.

Some...a few, a tiny proportion of radical feminists might berate me for some of my lifestyle choices. One of those is sitting right next to me in the common room, and she is of the opinion that because I love the submissive role within a D/s dynamic, that I have internalised certain gender roles. She thinks it's terrible that I would not only allow, but encourage objectification and degradation within that context. She admits that she's a bit biased, because she is a lesbian, and while she isn't man-hating per se, she really doesn't have much use for men at all. Not even as friends. It kind of screws her up when I tell her that I wouldn't mind being Dommed by a woman.

Flippant response, 'well that's okay then'...and she laughs.

But she is as extreme as I've come across, and even she discusses it in a rational, and respectful manner. We don't see eye to eye, but that's fine.

So you know what...I'll take the radical feminist over the 'feminism isn't needed anymore' crowd ANY DAY. At least the radical feminists are honest about their 'agenda'.

So you know what...I'll take the radical feminist over the 'feminism isn't needed anymore' crowd ANY DAY. At least the radical feminists are honest about their 'agenda'.

The other thing I've recently noticed about this debate is the disproportionate backlash against radical feminism. Radical feminists simply do not exist in mainstream culture, yet many of the people who rail against them are willing to blame many of society's ills on them. They are even willing to blame suffragettes for women being disenfranchised. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/10/nsuffrage10.xml) Odd.

And that was weird about the other person being all judgemental about what turns you on. I prefer the more inclusive idea that we are all queer in our own way, but whatever...her loss.

The other thing I've recently noticed about this debate is the disproportionate backlash against radical feminism. Radical feminists simply do not exist in mainstream culture, yet many of the people who rail against them are willing to blame many of society's ills on them. They are even willing to blame suffragettes for women being disenfranchised. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/10/nsuffrage10.xml) Odd. Unbelievable. Isn't that something...turn around and accuse the people who were fighting for women of actually HARMING them. Cripes.

And that was weird about the other person being all judgemental about what turns you on. I prefer the more inclusive idea that we are all queer in our own way, but whatever...her loss.
I agree. The funny thing is...she's sort of puritanical when it comes to sex.

Dirty talk is degrading. Vibrators are degrading. Role playing is degrading. Ugh. But that's fine...it's not like I'm the one sleeping with her. Oh wait...no one is. *okay, that was mean*

Some...a few, a tiny proportion of radical feminists might berate me for some of my lifestyle choices. One of those is sitting right next to me in the common room, and she is of the opinion that because I love the submissive role within a D/s dynamic, that I have internalised certain gender roles. She thinks it's terrible that I would not only allow, but encourage objectification and degradation within that context.

I've never understood the viewpoint that you should refrain from doing things you enjoy because it somehow hurts "the cause". In my mind, telling people that they have to conform to any particular standard - whether it be the patriarchal one or not - is a problem. It's kind of like the "feminists" who would berate woman for choosing to be homemakers. As long as that choice is made - as long as the woman is doing it because she likes it and not because someone has told her she "has to", then it is fine.

Personally, while my fiance and I are pretty vanilla when it comes to sex, I can definitely see where being submissive would be quite a turn on (although I could see where being dom would as well).

Would you ask a person to "moderately" rescue his or her child from a burning house

that article is still fabulous

I've never understood the viewpoint that you should refrain from doing things you enjoy because it somehow hurts "the cause". In my mind, telling people that they have to conform to any particular standard - whether it be the patriarchal one or not - is a problem. It's kind of like the "feminists" who would berate woman for choosing to be homemakers. As long as that choice is made - as long as the woman is doing it because she likes it and not because someone has told her she "has to", then it is fine.

Personally, while my fiance and I are pretty vanilla when it comes to sex, I can definitely see where being submissive would be quite a turn on (although I could see where being dom would as well).
Well it's not all her...I had a hell of a lot of trouble with the idea myself for quite a while, and to be honest, it's not totally resolved. Yes, in a way I suppose I do think from time to time that it 'hurts the cause'. It may not be totally rational, but well...little in life is.

I've never understood the viewpoint that you should refrain from doing things you enjoy because it somehow hurts "the cause". In my mind, telling people that they have to conform to any particular standard - whether it be the patriarchal one or not - is a problem. It's kind of like the "feminists" who would berate woman for choosing to be homemakers. As long as that choice is made - as long as the woman is doing it because she likes it and not because someone has told her she "has to", then it is fine.
what gets me is those women who write books and stuff about how I am "brainwashed by the patriarchal society" because I want to stay home with my kids, like I am somehow floating through life without a single critical thought about what I might want out of life. Then they go in about the "drudgery" of housework, and how "demeaning" it is for me to cook dinner, and mend clothes, and serve my husband.....:rolleyes:

I just get really annoyed by it. If I want to serve my husband and I get fulfillment from doing it, what exactly is it any of their business? don't they have lives to live?

I just get really annoyed by it. If I want to serve my husband and I get fulfillment from doing it, what exactly is it any of their business? don't they have lives to live?
[devil's advocate]
There's a saying in modern feminism: "The personal is political."

Like it or not, we live in a patriarchy. We are ALL influenced by it. And we all influence our society in how we choose to respond to it. Your personal choices DO influence others, albeit indirectly. And the sum of all the personal choices of all the women in the country will define how women in that country live. You are one part of that big picture.

Does this mean I think other people are entitled to force you to live the way they want you to live? Fuck no. But I do think that people's personal choices need to be examined critically, and I absolutely think that women's personal choices in how they run their own lives are relevant to discussions of feminism and women's status.

[devil's advocate]
There's a saying in modern feminism: "The personal is political."

Like it or not, we live in a patriarchy. We are ALL influenced by it. And we all influence our society in how we choose to respond to it. Your personal choices DO influence others, albeit indirectly. And the sum of all the personal choices of all the women in the country will define how women in that country live. You are one part of that big picture.

Does this mean I think other people are entitled to force you to live the way they want you to live? Fuck no. But I do think that people's personal choices need to be examined critically, and I absolutely think that women's personal choices in how they run their own lives are relevant to discussions of feminism and women's status.

can you replace that with any other life choice and still agree?

The whole thing seems like a double standard to me, "do what you want as long as it's what we would want"

[devil's advocate]

Does this mean I think other people are entitled to force you to live the way they want you to live? Fuck no. But I do think that people's personal choices need to be examined critically, By whom, exactly? And for what purpose? How do you honestly think you are going to 'understand' those personal choices? My choices might make it look like, from the outside, that I believe women are inferior to men. And yet I, in being critical of my OWN choices, know this is not true. I do not, however, in any way owe anyone else such an explanation. Yet without one, the person examining my choices is likely to draw the wrong conclusions.

and I absolutely think that women's personal choices in how they run their own lives are relevant to discussions of feminism and women's status.Perhaps in a general sense. But when it comes to actually commenting on other people's specific lives? Absolutely not.

And I can not fathom why you labelled this as a devil's advocate position, when it's one you've expressed as yours many times before. Or did you just mean the first line?

can you replace that with any other life choice and still agree?


Good question. Although you being a Christian, and having that lifestyle choice questioned frequently, the answer seems to be 'yes'. It's just okay when WE do it.

Good question. Although you being a Christian, and having that lifestyle choice questioned frequently, the answer seems to be 'yes'. It's just okay when WE do it.

I guess so.

*snipped "devil's advocate" crap, cuz it was that -- crap* There's a saying in modern feminism: "The personal is political."

Yeah, and it's bullshit. Let's take the abortion debate, for instance. Personally, I loathe abortions. However, politically, I recognise that the question of when life begins and, by extension, when it becomes murder to end a life, is not scientifically settled. Therefore, until that question is settled scientifically, I accept and agree that they should be legal. Making issues personal and allowing emotion to seep in takes away from one's rational approach to said issues.

Bottle is right imo. Examaning personal choices is important, as people can have influence. Influence can change culture, and culture dictates (mostly) politics.

Bottle is right imo. Examaning personal choices is important, as people can have influence. Influence can change culture, and culture dictates (mostly) politics.

I examine every choice I make, I get annoyed when other people think they need to because they think I "chose wrong"

Bottle is right imo. Examaning personal choices is important, as people can have influence. Influence can change culture, and culture dictates (mostly) politics.

People examining their own choices is important. This is probably not done nearly enough.

You examining mine, or me examining yours...not only not important, but totally out of line.

I examine every choice I make, I get annoyed when other people think they need to because they think I "chose wrong"

I think it is possible for other people to examine your choices to make sure they are actually your choices. You certainly seem to be a very independent soul who wouldn't dream of being told that you have to submit to your husband. As such, your choice is no different than my choice not to do so in the scheme of things. However, if you had been pressured into doing it despite your better judgment*, that would be another case entirely - and one that would demonstrate to feminists an area we need to address.

It's kind of like all the hoopla over the hijab/niqab/etc. I've known girls who were pressured to wear hijab and conform to the traditions of their families. I've known girls who, after a lot of thought and consideration, chose to wear hijab, despite the fact that their families did not. The former is a problem. The latter is not.

*Note: "better judgment" was not meant to imply that either is a "better" choice. Just that, if you had decided differently, and then been pressured to do it, that would have been against your better judgment.

can you replace that with any other life choice and still agree?
What do you mean?

Like, replace feminism as the topic with, say, racism and race issues? And then say that the choices people make, broken down by racial demographics, are also important and should be examined critically?

Sure, I'd still agree with that.


The whole thing seems like a double standard to me, "do what you want as long as it's what we would want"
Okay, lemme see if I can clarify what I was getting at.

I think EVERYBODY'S choices are important in the context of discussing gender and society. The elements that really shape gender roles and sexism and such are the mundane routines and practices of daily life. That's what really impacts us the most often. That's why those things need to be examined.

I am NOT saying that somebody gets to revoke your Official Feminist Club Membership if you dress the wrong way or don't run your household the right way or some crap like that.

The entire point of feminism is that there isn't a "right way" or "wrong way" for a woman (or man!) to act. The whole point is that our gender should not be used to define our role in the world.

The trouble spot comes in when you recognize that we haven't yet achieved the Feminist Paradise, and we're still stuck living in an unequal gendered world. That world is made up of us. Since we're all parts of the world, who we choose to be is actually defining part of the world! If we want to talk about feminism in our world, we are talking about feminism as it applies to us. As a society, but also as all of us little pieces of the society.

More or less, I'm saying that if we really want to get at the meat of the matter we are going to have to be prepared to speak about our personal realities and our personal experiences. We are going to have to be prepared to examine them critically. But being willing to examine things and discuss them DOES NOT mean that somebody else is suddenly entitled to make your choices for you! They can offer up opinions, sure, and they can share information, but your life is yours.

To use a parallel that might resonate, it's kind of like how we sometimes get those annoying assholes who presume to tell gay people or uppity women that they can't go to heaven. And the NS Smart Christians Brigade promptly reminds the assholes, "You aren't God. You don't decide who does and does not go to heaven. Get over yourself."

Well, feminism isn't God, but feminism is a concept. It's a set of beliefs and values. Nobody else can evict you from feminism.

Now, somebody might point out that your ACTIONS are not consistent with feminism, but then the burden of proof is on them. They've got to show why, for instance, keeping house automatically makes you a non-feminist. And they should remember that nobody is a freaking saint. It's possible for a person to do something that isn't consistent with feminism, and still be a feminist at the core. People make mistakes. People have blind spots. We're all works in progress.

Yeah, and it's bullshit. Let's take the abortion debate, for instance. Personally, I loathe abortions. However, politically, I recognise that the question of when life begins and, by extension, when it becomes murder to end a life, is not scientifically settled. Therefore, until that question is settled scientifically, I accept and agree that they should be legal. Making issues personal and allowing emotion to seep in takes away from one's rational approach to said issues.
Please be careful as you read what I am saying.

I tried to make it very clear that I don't believe anybody should have the right to FORCE Smunk (or anybody else) to run their personal lives according to somebody else's wishes. I'm not in any way defending LAWS to do this stuff. I'm talking about discussion, and what is and is not off-limits in feminist debates.

People examining their own choices is important. This is probably not done nearly enough.

You examining mine, or me examining yours...not only not important, but totally out of line.

Well I admit it is usually rude etc.. to criticize lifestyle choices. However, depending on the situation I think it can be justified.

What do you mean?

Like, replace feminism as the topic with, say, racism and race issues? And then say that the choices people make, broken down by racial demographics, are also important and should be examined critically?

Sure, I'd still agree with that.
are you comparing me to a racist?:confused:

Well I admit it is usually rude etc.. to criticize lifestyle choices. However, depending on the situation I think it can be justified.

Like?

Please be careful as you read what I am saying.

I tried to make it very clear that I don't believe anybody should have the right to FORCE Smunk (or anybody else) to run their personal lives according to somebody else's wishes. I'm not in any way defending LAWS to do this stuff. I'm talking about discussion, and what is and is not off-limits in feminist debates.

Right, but in "feminist" debates, Bottle (and please don't take this as a personal jab, since I understand you were quoting someone else), certain things are off the table right out, because, as you noted, "the personal is political." It's extremely close-minded.

are you comparing me to a racist?:confused:

I think she's saying that we can examine issues of ethnicity in much the same way as gender issues. If a person "acts black" or "acts white", for instance, is that because they have been told to do so and stereotyped? Or are they simply acting according to their personality and then being labeled as one or the other?

By whom, exactly?

Ideally? Everybody!


And for what purpose?

To better appreciate ourselves and our surroundings.

It's like how you will appreciate an object better if you take a moment to really look at it.


How do you honestly think you are going to 'understand' those personal choices?

If you mean, will I be able to completely understand the entire context and personal experiences behind them, then no. But I will be able to understand a person and her choices much better if I take the time to ask questions and hear about them.


My choices might make it look like, from the outside, that I believe women are inferior to men. And yet I, in being critical of my OWN choices, know this is not true. I do not, however, in any way owe anyone else such an explanation. Yet without one, the person examining my choices is likely to draw the wrong conclusions.

I don't think you "owe" anybody explanations, except yourself. However, I think that both you and other people will benefit if you choose to talk about your choices and share your experiences with others. We can learn a lot from one another.


Perhaps in a general sense. But when it comes to actually commenting on other people's specific lives? Absolutely not.

I kind of think it's the opposite, myself. The more generally you speak, the less interested I tend to get. :D


And I can not fathom why you labelled this as a devil's advocate position, when it's one you've expressed as yours many times before. Or did you just mean the first line?
Yes and no. Here's the scoop:

I DO think that it's best for people to examine pretty much everything. Including themselves. Including other people.

I DO think it's awesome to talk about our mutual examinations. Including those about ourselves, and about other people.

However...

I'm personally sick and tired of people (ANY people) telling women how to live, so I tend to be very very very turned off by anybody telling a woman that she's not living the right way. This includes other women.

I also think a huge proportion of people are not capable of being critical without also being assholes. That's a problem, because I don't think anybody should have to put up with assholes. In the perfect world, we could all think critically together without being jerks about it...but this world ain't perfect. So I got yer back if you want to tell some bossy buttinsky where they can shove it.

In a way, I guess you could say that I agree with statement, "the personal is political," because I do believe that it is the case. The thing is, I think IT SUCKS. I'm so damn sick of my personal being political. And I don't blame anybody else who feels the same way.

are you comparing me to a racist?:confused:
No! No, no, no!

I was just trying to come up with another example of a situation in which we could talk about people's personal decisions being "political." First thing that popped into my head was racism. Had nothing whatsoever to do with you or your beliefs.

Like?

Do you not sometimes feel that what someone is doing is not only morally wrong, but un productive and may be hindering something else. Don't you think that it is justified then?

I examine every choice I make, I get annoyed when other people think they need to because they think I "chose wrong"
That's the real problem right there.

In my perfect world, we could all look out for one another and think together and it would be wonderful happy fluffy rainbow story time all day long.

But in this world, 99% of the people who are interested in looking at your personal decisions are jackasses who are already convinced they know better than you. This is a very shitty place to start.

It is also why the personal is political: because a whole lot of people MAKE the personal political.

I don't like it. Believe me. I'm a liberal, educated, atheist female who likes to have unmarried sex (often with persons of the same sex). I am sick to death of my personal life being voted on in every election.

Do you not sometimes feel that what someone is doing is not only morally wrong, but un productive and may be hindering something else. Don't you think that it is justified then?

Like?

I think she's saying that we can examine issues of ethnicity in much the same way as gender issues. If a person "acts black" or "acts white", for instance, is that because they have been told to do so and stereotyped? Or are they simply acting according to their personality and then being labeled as one or the other?
YES. That's a much better way of putting it.

Like?

Say, someone chose to raise his children hating jews.

Good thing no one has said it but you, then, eh? It isn't holding a door open for a woman that is rude. It is rude that you will let it slam in the face of a man, just because he is a man. In this case, it is the male half of the population that you are being rude to.

It would be rude in your opinion, in my opinion as a man it is not rude.
I base my actions towards others through the lense of myself. To claim I do anything else would be a lie.


What an idiotic statement.

Not at all. All of your posts prove it to be true. However simply because it is your arguement to do find it idiotic.
If you will allow me;

The ideological foundation of feminism is the exact opposite of oppression. It is that all people, regardless of gender, should be allowed to be themselves. They shouldn't be expected or pushed to fit some arbitrary gender roles simply because they happen to have one set of genitalia or the other.

You make the assumption that people dont want these roles, you assume that if they are conforming to them it is because they simply dont ralize what is happening. So you are imposing you opinions over them.
As clearly by your posts you as a Feminist are most certainly against me being me...that is unless I change and conform to your vision of proper behavior.
Unlike, my train of thought which is simply, live and let live.
Clearly Feminism seeks to "Liberate" plenty of people who deny needing it.
So simply because you call something arbitrary, and what you believe to be as important and indeed the ONLY "correct" mode of behavior, I say it is subjective and there are a multitude of correct choices based on personal experience, enviorment, and a thousand other factors.

Clearly by at least your demonstration of Feminist thought it is completely oppressive to all who do not agree with its suppositions on society.
So if it is oppressive to anyone, it is more oppressive then my line of thought--do what you will.


And no one is arguing with this. But that isn't going to change the fact that we're going to see you as rude as hell when you let a door slam in the face of a man simply because he is a man, or assume that a woman can't lift something simply because she is a woman.
Well, if let a door slam in man's face a woman can feel free to tell it was rude.
As for the other half of that statement--ignoring the fact that women are physically weaker pound for pound. I would never tryto help a woman who had not even attempted to accomplish a task---she has to fail before I try to help. I hate offers of help before i had the chance to fail at least once.

So, I treat everyone else only as I would ask to be treated. Malicious of me I know.



Hard to tell. A few weeks ago, I would have said yes.
But I've recently realized that a lot of the bigoted things people do - and the viewpoints they hold - are not really malicious or even intentional at all.

Fair enough.


They are simply a product of that person having been told something and never having really questioned it.
Soley in your opinion, there is no fact to that statement. Only your opinion on the behavior of others. Behavior you have an admitted bias against so like all bias--slighting it rather then respecting the difference is your choosen course. Reducing a behavior you find personally distasteful to being done out if ignorance is much easier then considering the people have considered what they are doing and indeed behave in their choosen manner. Where you would demand respect for yourself you offer none for anyone who doesnt follow your own ideas---this is again indicative of the oppressive nature of feminist ideals.



You keep stating all of the ways in which you think women are equal - thus expressing feminist viewpoints. You just don't take that to its logical conclusion.
Yes I do.
I simply dont take it to your logical conclusion.
Since human behavior is a matter that exceeds logic...we are certainly more then merely logical beings, more then computers and scientific calculators...therefore our behavior is a subjective matter...not some equation that is meant to be solved for the solitary correct answer---the narrow Feminst thinking, that you have been programmed with. Another reaosn I loathe organize "movements" indoctrination is blinding.


Meanwhile, I really would like an answer to the question I asked earlier. How would you act towards a male-to-female transsexual? Would you open doors for her? Would you walk her to her car for her protection?

I know two Transsexuals.
I treat them as women.

I also treat my feminine homosexual friends like women--penis fully intact, or so I am told.
I dont really see the point of this...Feminism seems very focused on genitalia for something trying to get people not to focus on genitalia as you claim.


As I have implied, I do not understand why in order for you to be right, I must be wrong.

I do not feel you are wrong simply because I feel I am right.
I am right for me, you are right for you...isnt that enough?

Say, someone chose to raise his children hating jews.

The problem I have with making moral judgments about other people's choices is that only I'm right.

Know what I mean?

You can be right too, if you agree with me.

Isn't that essentially what it boils down to?

Now, I can clearly pont to how raising one's children to hate jews is bad, and shouldn't be tolerated. While others can clearly point to how raising one's children to believe homosexuality is okay is bad, and shouldn't be tolerated.

I agree with what Bottle's said about most people starting from a position of assumed superiority when it comes to looking at other people's lifestyle choices. It's why I am reluctant to delve into such a discussion with people unless I know they aren't that type of douchebag.

I agree with what Bottle's said about most people starting from a position of assumed superiority when it comes to looking at other people's lifestyle choices. It's why I am reluctant to delve into such a discussion with people unless I know they aren't that type of douchebag.
Millions of gallons of yes.

That's why I don't personally support the idea that feminism should always examine personal decisions (and why I was largely playing Devil's Advocate for the last couple pages). Ideally, perhaps, but not in the world we've got. There are just too many assholes, and you'll end up wasting all your time arguing about your choice of fabric softener with some know-it-all.

The problem I have with making moral judgments about other people's choices is that only I'm right.

Know what I mean?

You can be right too, if you agree with me.

Isn't that essentially what it boils down to?


Correct. But that doesn't mean to say that it's wrong to present alternative opinions to this person so the person is more likely to make an informed judgement.

Correct. But that doesn't mean to say that it's wrong to present alternative opinions to this person so the person is more likely to make an informed judgement.

Unless you've established some sort of relationship with that person, I'd suggest against doing any such thing.

Nothing pisses a person off more than the unsolicited opinions of a stranger.

It would be rude in your opinion, in my opinion as a man it is not rude.

You mean your opinion as you. It has nothing to do with you being a man. I am a man and I hold the door for anyone it might slam in the face of or who needs me to hold it. Doing otherwise is impolite. That's my opinion as a polite person.

You mean your opinion as you. It has nothing to do with you being a man. I am a man and I hold the door for anyone it might slam in the face of or who needs me to hold it. Doing otherwise is impolite. That's my opinion as a polite person.
You mean your opinion as you. It has nothing to do with you being a polite person. I am an polite person and I not only hold the door for anyone it might slam in the face of, I also provide free legal advice on demand. Doing otherwise is impolite. That's my opinion as an awesome person.
:p

Unless you've established some sort of relationship with that person, I'd suggest against doing any such thing.

Nothing pisses a person off more than the unsolicited opinions of a stranger.

Yeah of course.

Nothing pisses a person off more than the unsolicited opinions of a stranger.

Yet you keep coming back to NSG...

Arn't you lot doing all this personal choice analysing skibereen anyway? I mean the things he is doing are just some trivial traditions, nothing major so I don't see why people must act as if he's inciting terrorism.

...I don't see why people must act as if he's inciting terrorism.
Specifically, can you quote a post that you feel shows somebody acting as if Skib is inciting terrorism?

Because that's not remotely the impression I've got, so I'd like to see what you're talking about.

Not at all. All of your posts prove it to be true.

Really? Where am I seeking to oppress anyone?

You make the assumption that people dont want these roles, you assume that if they are conforming to them it is because they simply dont ralize what is happening. So you are imposing you opinions over them.

Not at all. In fact, if you read the more recent posts, you would see that I have expressed the fact that the opposite is often true. People may take actions that conform to stereotypes, not because they have been told to do so, but because they truly want to. I have made it exceedingly clear that I have no problem with that.

The point is that no one should be pressured to do so. No one should be expected to do so. They should only be expected to be themselves and live their lives by their own decisions. If that means they happen to conform to some stereotype, so be it.

As clearly by your posts you as a Feminist are most certainly against me being me...that is unless I change and conform to your vision of proper behavior.

I'm not against you being you. I just don't condone rude behavior.

Unlike, my train of thought which is simply, live and let live.
Clearly Feminism seeks to "Liberate" plenty of people who deny needing it.
So simply because you call something arbitrary, and what you believe to be as important and indeed the ONLY "correct" mode of behavior, I say it is subjective and there are a multitude of correct choices based on personal experience, enviorment, and a thousand other factors.

You seem to have a serious issue with projecting, my dear.

Clearly by at least your demonstration of Feminist thought it is completely oppressive to all who do not agree with its suppositions on society.
So if it is oppressive to anyone, it is more oppressive then my line of thought--do what you will.

"Do what you will" is precisely the feminist line of thought. The difference is that we don't think you should do exactly what you've already said you do - enforce or pressure others to conform to your ideas of gender roles.

Soley in your opinion, there is no fact to that statement. Only your opinion on the behavior of others. Behavior you have an admitted bias against so like all bias--slighting it rather then respecting the difference is your choosen course. Reducing a behavior you find personally distasteful to being done out if ignorance is much easier then considering the people have considered what they are doing and indeed behave in their choosen manner.

If a person has truly thought about it, they could provide a rational basis for it. I have yet to see one. I've asked you for one repeatedly, and gotten nothing.

Where you would demand respect for yourself you offer none for anyone who doesnt follow your own ideas---this is again indicative of the oppressive nature of feminist ideals.

I have not disrespected anyone.

Yes I do.
I simply dont take it to your logical conclusion.

I've asked you repeatedly for your rationale. All you've given me is "women deserve better." There has been no actual reason behind it. You've basically said, "Women and men should be treated equally, except in some arbitrary situations I have designated."

How is your behavior any different than teaching your children to hold the door open for white people, but not black people?

I know two Transsexuals.
I treat them as women.

Good, glad to hear it.

Specifically, can you quote a post that you feel shows somebody acting as if Skib is inciting terrorism?

Because that's not remotely the impression I've got, so I'd like to see what you're talking about.

I was over exageratting. But I wasn't refering to any post specifically, but just this massive response that Skib provoked with these large long winded debates that are happening.

Some...a few, a tiny proportion of radical feminists might berate me for some of my lifestyle choices. One of those is sitting right next to me in the common room, and she is of the opinion that because I love the submissive role within a D/s dynamic, that I have internalised certain gender roles. She thinks it's terrible that I would not only allow, but encourage objectification and degradation within that context. She admits that she's a bit biased, because she is a lesbian, and while she isn't man-hating per se, she really doesn't have much use for men at all. Not even as friends. It kind of screws her up when I tell her that I wouldn't mind being Dommed by a woman.

Flippant response, 'well that's okay then'...and she laughs.

But she is as extreme as I've come across, and even she discusses it in a rational, and respectful manner. We don't see eye to eye, but that's fine.

So you know what...I'll take the radical feminist over the 'feminism isn't needed anymore' crowd ANY DAY. At least the radical feminists are honest about their 'agenda'.


the only time it would be "wrong" to be sumissive is when you dont get anything out of it. when you submit not because its what turns you on but because you force yourself to do it to please a man. (not that there doesnt need to be some give and take in any long term relationship)

even if one assumes that you get a thrill out of it because you are pretending to be the submissive woman that sexist society would have you be, i dont see anything wrong with that. getting the most out of your sex life is a positive thing. (and no i dont assume that that is why you get a thrill out of it)

i assume that that is where your colleague is coming from. that you are acting out a sexist play from generations past that doesnt really reflect your true self.

she need to get out more.

I was over exageratting. But I wasn't refering to any post specifically, but just this massive response that Skib provoked with these large long winded debates that are happening.
It's a thread about feminism, sexism, and the empowerment (or disempowerment) of women. I hardly think it's unusual or inappropriate to have people responding at length to a person's description of their own sexist behavior.

Perhaps I'm missing something?

Yet you keep coming back to NSG...

I'm a masochist. What's your excuse? :p

i assume that that is where your colleague is coming from. that you are acting out a sexist play from generations past that doesnt really reflect your true self.

she need to get out more.
Bang on...that's exactly where I think she's coming from on this.

The corollary to that would be...if I truly am like that, then it's because I've been conditioned to be. Also wrong.

Unless you've established some sort of relationship with that person, I'd suggest against doing any such thing.

Nothing pisses a person off more than the unsolicited opinions of a stranger.

Oof, the irony.

Oof, the irony.

It's okay when I do it, fuckernuts.

Really? Where am I seeking to oppress anyone?

By demanding society fit your model.


I have made it exceedingly clear that I have no problem with that.

No you havnt.


The point is that no one should be pressured to do so. No one should be expected to do so. They should only be expected to be themselves and live their lives by their own decisions. If that means they happen to conform to some stereotype, so be it.

If that is the case then we are in complete agreement.



I'm not against you being you. I just don't condone rude behavior.

As long as we agree that "Rude" is subjective and that you condoning my behavior should be kept in a place to only define your behavior...not be involved in altering my behavior. Just as my perception of your behavior should involve you being forced to alter yours.



You seem to have a serious issue with projecting, my dear.

Again, you and your expanation of feminism are the only ones suggesting a "wrong" behavior, and a "right" behavior.


"Do what you will" is precisely the feminist line of thought. The difference is that we don't think you should do exactly what you've already said you do - enforce or pressure others to conform to your ideas of gender roles. SO you will force your roles on people instead?
Becuase no where have I forced anyone into any role.
If you say my perception is forcing someone to do something then it is indeed you who are trying to force a specific line of thought. My actions versus yours.



If a person has truly thought about it, they could provide a rational basis for it. I have yet to see one. I've asked you for one repeatedly, and gotten nothing. Can you give a rationale basis for everything you do?
I cant. I dont need to.
Human beings are not rational.
And again, what you deem is rational is not what I deem as rational.
We are back to subjective territory, you seem to be ignoring that fact.
Not I.



I have not disrespected anyone.

In your opinion.


I've asked you repeatedly for your rationale. All you've given me is "women deserve better." There has been no actual reason behind it. You've basically said, "Women and men should be treated equally, except in some arbitrary situations I have designated."
I never said "women deserve better(period)" quoting out of context.


How is your behavior any different than teaching your children to hold the door open for white people, but not black people?
Malign intent for one.

How is your desire to force a mode of thinking on others any different then other oppressive line of thought?
Oh wait, because you FEEL you are right, and can justifiy it by rationalizing it to yourself--I wont engage in such mental masturbation.



Good, glad to hear it.

Indeed.

Now answer my question.

Why do I have to be wrong for you to be right?

Bang on...that's exactly where I think she's coming from on this.

The corollary to that would be...if I truly am like that, then it's because I've been conditioned to be. Also wrong.

which puts you in a similar spot to smunkee.

both of you are being criticized by people who assume that you have no idea what you are really consenting to.

its a form of disrespect.

By demanding society fit your model.

Oh, the absurdity. So by demanding that society be non-oppressive and allow people to choose their own paths rather than be forced down one path or another, she is being oppressive.

Man, you're going to have to draw a line for me, because it appears that stretched logic beyond all recognition. Was it also oppressive when people demanded society end slavery? I guess by your definition it was. Which of course would make any societal act oppressive and completely ruin the meaning of the word. But let's pretend... explain how allowing people to make their own decisions is oppressive.

which puts you in a similar spot to smunkee.

both of you are being criticized by people who assume that you have no idea what you are really consenting to.

its a form of disrespect.
Agreed.

Thus, I try not to work from this assumption when looking at other people's choices.

By demanding society fit your model.

What demands have I made? In fact, I have done the opposite of make demands of people. I have stated that they should be left to find their own paths, without anyone demanding that they fit a particular model.

Remember that it was you who talked about what "no man" should do or feel. It was you who said no man should ever let a woman open a door for him. You are the only one trying to enforce gender roles here.

No you havnt.

You'd have to be trying awfully hard to be obtuse to read what I have said in any other manner.

If that is the case then we are in complete agreement.

Then why are you telling your daughters that they have to treat men and women differently, when they might see no reason to do so?

As long as we agree that "Rude" is subjective and that you condoning my behavior should be kept in a place to only define your behavior...not be involved in altering my behavior. Just as my perception of your behavior should involve you being forced to alter yours.

I would never dream of "forcing" someone to alter their behavior, unless it was actually harming others.

Again, you and your expanation of feminism are the only ones suggesting a "wrong" behavior, and a "right" behavior.

No, that's the projecting again. I didn't say anything about "wrong" and "right". In fact, I emphasized that it is up to the individual to determine their role in society.

SO you will force your roles on people instead?

Of course not. That would be the exact opposite of feminism.

Becuase no where have I forced anyone into any role.
If you say my perception is forcing someone to do something then it is indeed you who are trying to force a specific line of thought. My actions versus yours.

We aren't discussing your perception. We are discussing your actions. And you are certainly trying to make sure that your daughters conform to your idea of gender roles - at least from what you've told us.

Can you give a rationale basis for everything you do?

If I find that I cannot, I seriously question the behavior in question and will likely change it.

In your opinion.

In reality.

I never said "women deserve better(period)" quoting out of context.

Yes, you did. You have repeatedly stated that the women in your life deserve more respectful treatment than the men.

Malign intent for one.

Someone could certainly think that "white people deserve" more respect and attention without wanting to harm black people. One might even think that a black person would be insulted by having a door held open for him. In fact, that would be the logical equivalent of what you have said about men and women.

How is your desire to force a mode of thinking on others any different then other oppressive line of thought?

I have no such desire.

Indeed.

Now answer my question.

Why do I have to be wrong for you to be right?

The question is a non sequitur. I've never said that you do.

Here's a question, why do you want so badly for me to be oppressing you? Does it make me easier to demonize? Does it make feminism itself easier to demonize if you pretend that it is all about oppression?

I am sorry.
I cant stand the heart break of Jolt timing me out on antoher post...that makes three long posts for me.

So I disagree with you. On a variety of issues, especially the spirit of many your statements.

I know you disagree with me, call this a victory for your arguements.

For the record, my entire rational is based on the fact that french fries taste best dipped in chocolate icecream.

So hopefully we can simply agree to disagree.

I am sorry.
I cant stand the heart break of Jolt timing me out on antoher post...that makes three long posts for me.

So I disagree with you. On a variety of issues, especially the spirit of many your statements.

I know you disagree with me, call this a victory for your arguements.

For the record, my entire rational is based on the fact that french fries taste best dipped in chocolate icecream.

So hopefully we can simply agree to disagree.


The problem I have with the way you exit like this and most of your arguments is that you try to throw absurd and provably false statements in with opinions and act like they're all opinion. You've claimed that Dem argued for oppression, but you've not evidenced this in any way. You claimed that feminism is based in oppression, but you've not evidenced in any way. Those aren't opinions like "I think women should be in the home" but assertions. And you've offered no support for such ridiculous assertions.