Narcissism and Feminism...

[lala_rawraw]

Okay, I wrote this entire thing and by the time I was done, the thread was locked for some reason I have yet to comprehend. But I did not spend time writing this just to toss it. What is wrong with having open debate, even if it gets heated?

So here is my response to that thread.

Firstly, modern feminism is not failing because of narcissism. It is failing because the attack from the other side has changed and the feminist movement did not alter itself to respond in kind.

There are two questions at the center of my premise:

1). The feminist movement has refused to politically attack women who violate feminist principles: Condi Rice. The sort of unspoken theory on not criticizing other women "in public" is outdated. Condi Rice is anti-feminism, anti-feminist philosophy as a whole, although she benefited from it greatly.

2). Feminism address civil rights and women's rights in a particular way, which too is now outdated. Feminism was its most powerful in addressing the "frame" of the past: 1950's housewife - 1980s professional/career woman or a 1950s "Negro" - to African Americans in higher office. The counter was much more subtle and feminism has not addressed it: victimization of women and pigeon-holding of women; issue specific focus vs. larger focus, etc.

Your concept of narcissism is a bit confused. The PC movement was not generated by the minority, rather it was generated by the majority to give the impression of equality, respect, etc.

The Democratic party has also failed on the most basic premise of why it exists, in large through representing the minority (even though there are more people in the minority than in the majority). It has failed to address some of the issues I have mentioned, but the Dem's failure is far more complex.

I am writing a manifesto of sorts for an updated version of feminism, but I think it needs another name to begin with. Feminism has now been marketed and purchased just like Liberal. The connotations were allowed to stigmatize these words and thereby, these groups, and thereby these movements.

In any case, the narcissism comment is a highly naive interpretation and a bit insulting in its assumption that vanity and self adoration are somehow the motivations of modern feminism.

[KissMyAsscroft]

1. Here's a thought.

Stop calling it feminism and creat a new manifesto that doesn't divide the sexes.

[wuushew]

6. What is wrong with specific labeling?

Does it not stand to reason that certain issues are unique to a specific gender or ethnicity? Would general philosophy classes substitute for women or Chicano studies?

The battle for equality never ends. The problems in race relations did not resolve themselves after the Civil War nor did gender equality become realized after suffrage. The gains in any period of history are always subjective. We never reach the goal since it is always being moved forward.

The crux of your argument seems to be that white male voters believe in a false egalitarianism which I believe does not exist. Why would they be better off in the Republican Party? Such a noble party that puts a drop out student in charge of a major oil company and allows a C student to run multiple businesses into the ground. Are these so called fair minded people going to find meritocracy and fairness in the party of cronyism and graft? Why is necessary to adopt language that "tricks" people in voting for you based on labels and semantics?

[noamnety]

14. Hear hear!

When men are denied prescriptions at the pharmacy because the pharmacist feels they have to act as the father figure to keep men in line morally, then we can talk about how the need for feminism has ended.

When women - everywhere - are allowed to vote, we can talk.

When schools stop spending a disproportionate amount of tax dollars on programs that benefit only the boys (football), we can talk.

When communities stop spending a disproportionate amount of tax dollars on stadiums for the boys, we can talk.

When we no longer appoint judges who argue that women have an obligation to subordinate themselves to their husbands, we can talk.

When we stop nominating judges who uphold the rights of doctors to allow salesmen into physical exams of women without notification or recourse, we can talk.

When the Secretary of Health and Human Services isn't somebody who opposes birth control for rape victims, we can talk.

When a woman complaining of chest pains gets the same care as a man, we can talk.

When a man isn't 2.5 times more likely to be recommended for a kidney transplant than a woman, we can talk.

When women - worldwide - are allowed equal access to education, we can talk.

Until then, don't expect me to listen to you say that there is no discrimination against women. I'll continue to fight for my rights. And if I feel I've won them all, I'll continue to fight for other women's rights.

If you feel you are being discriminated against in some way, fight it. But don't expect us to stop fighting for our rights just because you don't see the effects of discrimination.

[tyedyeto]

17. Bravo!!

:applause:

[omega minimo]

23. When domestic abuse and rape

are recognized and prosecuted as (gender-based) hate crimes.....

[KissMyAsscroft]

34. All crimes are hate crimes.

If you rape and murder a woman, that is somehow more hateful than raping and murdering my son?

[Eloriel]

45. Not too many sons are raped and then murdered, but a LOT of

daughters -- of all ages -- are raped and murdered. And typically the males who ARE raped and murdered are children, not adults, while the raped and also raped-then-murdered females are all ages and adult in FAR bigger numbers than men.

The point is that being a certain gender (FEMALE) makes one far more vulnerable to be victimized by such crimes. The fact that women are the targets far, far more than men means that there is something about men's attitudes about women that make them target women -- THAT is sexism. THAT makes it a hate crime.

Your notion that "all crimes are hate crimes" is total nonsense. Bribery and theft are not hate crimes, and plenty of murders are crimes of passion (anger) or convenience (armed robbery, etc.). Just nonsense.

[lala_rawraw]

53. Okay, let's focus on the issue...

Because if we go into gender crimes and such, we won't have any valuable discussion here. Women can commit crimes too and have done so. But I don't want to get into statistics and such... crime is not the subject matter and I don't want to make this a flame thread:)

[Eloriel]

106. Yeah -- I fell into the trap of this thread hijacker

sorry. I smartened up, as you probably know by now.
]

[KissMyAsscroft]

73. Oh please.....

Women are 52% of the population and you are saying that they deserve minority status?

Do you know how insulting that statement is to anyone who has ever suffered a real hate crime (like a lynching)

"The fact that women are the targets far, far more than men means that there is something about men's attitudes about women that make them target women -- THAT is sexism. THAT makes it a hate crime."


BULL SHIT. :puke:

And there we have it folks. The crux of modern feminism. Men hate women and want to murder them so the state must step in to save them because they are helpless to protect themselves.



P.S. I said all murderers should be treated the same. Every murder case is looked at and prosecuted according to intent. Whether or not a woman randomly kills a man or a women makes no difference. It's an idiotic position.

Should we split it up even further? Hell, why stop at gender!! Women that are BETTER LOOKING are more likely to be raped! So should women under, oh say, 130 pounds be given victim status over someone who is obese who is killed?

So if someone murders your father or son, you aren't going to want that person to get life no matter who killed them or why?

Your arguement is a perfect illustration of the modern insanity of feminism.

[KissMyAsscroft]

32. Good lord.......

>When women are allowed to vote everywhere.


Last time I checked they are allowed to vote. Are you saying that American feminism is directed toward Muslim countries? And are you saying that American MEN aren't addressing this? Last time I checked men were getting their arms blown off giving women the right to vote in Afghanistan.

>When schools stop spending money on football.

Schools spend money on anything that creates a revenue for the school. If they could consistently make a profit from girls' sports, they would do so in a heartbeat. And I hate football. I would rather my school build an indoor soccer stadium because that's what I like. Should I start a men only movement to address that concern?

>When communities stop spending for men's sports.....

The last time I checked, they didn't give away ownership to teams. Believe it ir not, I can't just walk up to a stadium and demand a baseball team. Why is that, you ask? Because they cost a lot of money, that's why. And what do you think the owners want when they invest in the team? Oh that's right....a profit. And what makes more PROFIT? Men's sports. Pretty easy when you think of it as a capitalist isn't it? There are women's basketball teams and some make money and do very well and they build stadiums for those teams too. But don't let your feministic goggles get in the way of that observation.

>Judges who argue that they subordinate themselves to husbands.

You can't make anyone stay with anyone. It's a free country. Anyone can leave a situation they don't like. It's a free country. Nice strawman arguement.

>When we stop nominating judges who uphold the rights of doctors to allow salesmen into physical exams of women without notification or recourse, we can talk.

Huh? I will admit I have no idea what you are talking about here. If you are talking about medical records privacy, I am with you on that one as is the ACLU which doesn't discriminate based on gender.

> When the Secretary of Health and Human Services isn't somebody who opposes birth control for rape victims, we can talk.

I'm against that too. Am I a feminist? Tommy Thompson is a republican first, a man second. Keep that in mind when you are dealing with politician's....they are WHORES.


>When a woman complaining of chest pains gets the same care as a man, we can talk.

Yeah, because emergency rooms just turn away women who complain of chest pains.....good lord. :eyes: Yeah, usually when they have had a woman in a hospital room after a heart attack and she hasn't improved, they just throw her in the street.

>When a man isn't 2.5 times more likely to be recommended for a kidney transplant than a woman, we can talk.

Prove that this is gender based. I don't believe you. Whatsoever. From what I understand, these lists are first come, first serve. There are probably medical boards who make sure this system is fairly applied. I have female doctors in my family. I am willing to bet you can't back this up with any facts. They are high up in the medical community and would not allow this to happen. Neither would men. It's probably about money, or some BS skewed statistic you saw somewhere.

Prove it.

>When women - worldwide - are allowed equal access to education, we can talk.

I'm for that too. Are you for allowing young men the right to an education? Or does all of the funding in your organization go to women first? My ideal organization funds CHILDREN, not girls. It's amazing how that works itsn't it?

--------------------------------------------------------
Let me guess.....you are a woman.

I noticed that you didn't bring up any human rights violations at all, only the ones that affected females. You really seemed to have those figures right at the tip of your tongue. A whole load of easily debunked garbage that you probably have never bothered to even verify or question.

But hey, don't let me disuade you from your pity party of how bad women have it.

Now if you will excuse me, I am off to watch Oprah and her poor, poor audience of oppressed souls.


Here, I will even give you a hint how it all works. I will try to make this simple so you can see what affects women's treatment in America......ok..............here goes......:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[omega minimo]

42. With all respect and compassion

How did you get so militantly anti-woman?

:evilfrown:

and RE: your knee-jerk response to my post above--

You are familiar with the legal term Hate Crime? Did you know that rape and domestic violence are not currently recognized or prosecuted as Hate Crimes? That crimes committed against women BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN are not given the same legal weight and criminal penalties as crimes based on racial bigotry or homophobia?

See how easy it is to overlook the discrepancies in the way women are treated in this world?

[KissMyAsscroft]

55. I'm militantly anti-woman because I want all violent crime prosecuted...

the same way and by the same standards? I don't believe in the term "hate-crime" It's absurd.

Would would you be more pissed off at? The person who killed your mother, or the person that killed your father?

Get it?

[Bluerthanblue]

117. question for you ....

... do you believe that there should be stiffer penalties for those who kill children, torture thier victim before killing them, or kill law enforcement people? or those who 'pre-meditate' thier killing or violent crime before comitting it?

[ultraist]

124. Men committ 90% of violent crimes

The outrageously high percentages of crimes against women and female children is a reflection of the misogynist attitudes in our society. Misogynist values lead to social violence.

Sexism permeates our cultural norms and institutions and VIOLENCE against women is merely ONE symptom of this problem. Hate and discrimination leads to violence.

[Eloriel]

64. Boy, I'm tellin' ya!

I'm sorry I wasted my time responding at all. This poster is beyond hope, and most of all, "not negotiating in good faith," if you know what I mean. The OP isn't an honest and sincere question, it's a set-up. I would suggest to all women who read this far to just ignore the poor, miserable soul who is so put upon and sore besot.

:nopity:

[KissMyAsscroft]

77. By the way, I am a Howard Dean supporter.

Just an FYI.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

121. If so...

he would be ashamed of you, no doubt.

[KissMyAsscroft]

79. Your arguement fell apart.

It's ok darlin' It happens.

[Bluerthanblue]

120. you are probably completely right Eloriel, but

somehow not 'rebutting' something that i feel is SO completely inaccurate, or acceptable, is giving them a kind of 'tacit' approval-
Guess there is a point when the point is made, the horse is dead, and one is only feeding a desire to create strife- or become a 'victim' of thier own making-

[lala_rawraw]

56. Stop... really, just stop

Can you please just stop? This topic is simply about the movement and the current model of that movement. Now just stop with your female bashing comments already.

[KissMyAsscroft]

62. Stop male bashing me!

Stop with your man bashing my point of view. Just stop.

[lala_rawraw]

69. Show me one comment, just one...??????

[KissMyAsscroft]

80. You show me one!!

Don't post BS you can't back up.

I want women to have equal status, not victim status. Somehow in your warped mind, that makes me anti-woman. Whatever.

[lala_rawraw]

83. You said I was male bashing... show me one comment...

Don't change the subject... show me ONE comment...now!

[KissMyAsscroft]

89. Show me one comment where I bash women.

You started this exchange. Back it up.

[Eloriel]

91. Just ignore him, Lala, really.

Just classic trolling behavior, not worth your time dealing with. It's clear as day. Step back, put him on Ignore if you have to. But whatever you do, don't feed the trolls.

[noamnety]

104. If you don't know this stuff, you haven't been paying attention

1. When women are allowed to vote everywhere.
Last time I checked they are allowed to vote.

Newsflash. America is not everywhere. And don't kid yourself, we aren't in Afghanistan "to give women the right to vote." If that were the reason we were there, we'd be fighting in Kuwait. Did you know a bill to allow women to vote there just failed?

2. When schools stop spending money on football.
Schools spend money on anything that creates a revenue for the school.

Can't use that argument for high schools, sorry. The sports programs in high school are a drain on the budget, not a source of profits. Even if they did, though, that would not excuse creating opportunities for boys to earn scholarships totalling a billion in scholarships, and not creating an equal amount of opportunities for women.

3. When communities stop spending for men's sports.....
The last time I checked, they didn't give away ownership to teams. Believe it ir not, I can't just walk up to a stadium and demand a baseball team.

Nope, but if you own a team, you can demand that people are forced out of their homes to build you a new stadium. You can demand that the city creates new taxes to fund your stadium. And you can make a nice profit off that stadium, after the residents pay for it. Like Bush did, in Texas.

4. Judges who argue that they subordinate themselves to husbands.
You can't make anyone stay with anyone. It's a free country. Anyone can leave a situation they don't like. It's a free country. Nice strawman arguement.

"A judge has refused to grant a divorce to a pregnant woman trying to leave her husband two years after he was jailed for beating her, ruling instead that she must wait until the child is born."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/01/national/main664211.shtml

5. When we stop nominating judges who uphold the rights of doctors to allow salesmen into physical exams of women without notification or recourse, we can talk.
Huh? I will admit I have no idea what you are talking about here. If you are talking about medical records privacy, I am with you on that one as is the ACLU which doesn't discriminate based on gender.

Carolyn Kuhl (failed nominee). Dismissed a breast cancer patient’s claim of invasion of privacy, after her doctor brought a drug company representative into the room during a breast exam. The unidentified man who came in with her doctor was "introduced as 'a person' who was looking at Dr. Polonsky's work." The doctor took Ms. Sanchez's fan from her hand during the exam and asked the man to fan her, after which they both laughed and refused when she asked to have it back.


6. When the Secretary of Health and Human Services isn't somebody who opposes birth control for rape victims, we can talk.
I'm against that too. Am I a feminist? Tommy Thompson is a republican first, a man second. Keep that in mind when you are dealing with politician's....they are WHORES.

Republican, man, woman, whatever. Makes no difference to me. It's a burden uniquely placed upon women to be raped, then forced to carry the resulting child to term - and oh, by the way, pay the thousands in expenses for the delivery, possibly be forced into bankruptcy if she doesn't have insurance and needs a C-section, lose time off of work for it, and so forth. But hey, that's how you justify the lower pay, right? Cause those women aren't working as many hours and are taking maternity leave, so they deserve less pay per hour?

7. When a woman complaining of chest pains gets the same care as a man, we can talk.
Yeah, because emergency rooms just turn away women who complain of chest pains.....good lord.

Women who have suffered a heart attack may be less likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) than men in the same condition, according to results of a new study supporting earlier research suggesting similar sex-based inequities in heart care.

http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/women/19238186


8. When a man isn't 2.5 times more likely to be recommended for a kidney transplant than a woman, we can talk.
Prove that this is gender based.
I don't believe you. Whatsoever. From what I understand, these lists are first come, first serve.

"A national random survey of 271 U.S. nephrologists was used to gauge their bases for transplant recommendations for people with end-stage renal disease. All clinical factors being equal, results show that white men were almost 2.5 times as likely as white women to be recommended for kidney transplants."

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/minority.htm#Access


9. When women - worldwide - are allowed equal access to education, we can talk.
I'm for that too. Are you for allowing young men the right to an education?

Yes. See my use of the word EQUAL.

10. I noticed that you didn't bring up any human rights violations at all, only the ones that affected females.

Yes, because that's the subject we are discussing - feminism. I could discuss any number of issues, I could talk about cruelty to animals if you like, or I could talk about the rising cost of coffee beans, but that's not the subject of the thread, is it?

[alarimer]

119. Very good counterpoints

I can't respond to this poster without losing my temper. It seems that this person doesn't like women or, more likely, has either had a bad relationship experience or maybe even lost a job to a woman and so has a giant chip on his shoulder. Usually when someone is so adamantly opposed to "feminism" something has happened to them to cause it (see Rush Limbaugh for an example).

[KissMyAsscroft]

27. Who decides when enough is enough?

According to your theory we should have a white men's studies class because after all "Hey, it's just a label!!!!"

Try a little experiment. Start a white men only group at your school and only study white men's issues and how they relate to the world.

What do you think would happen? You would be called racist sexist bigots.

Which is the same standard I am applying to feminism. Because, and bear with me here because it gets difficult....THEY AREN'T A MINORITY NOR ARE THEY OPPRESSED.

Chicano studies is different because they are a minority with a different language and culture. Women are a different sex. Not a different culture. There have always been differences between men and women, without the need to create specific classes that apply to one or the other.


The crux of my argument does not rest on the assumption that Republican voters do anything. My argument is that feminism needlessly divides people and causes strife between the sexes. My argument is that it has outlived it's usefulness and now continues like a bureaucracy that no one wants to eliminate.

[beam me up scottie]

54. " white men's issues and how they relate to the world."

I believe that describes the contents of all of the standard history textbooks.

WHo the hell do you think wrote history?

[KissMyAsscroft]

61. Ok....Than start an all girls school that only teachs from the female view

Leave out all mention of great male explorers and writers and politicians. Also ignore all male presidents.

Focus on only female accomplishments. Make sure that for every male you study, you must also study one female.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ultraist]

129. Could be small penis syndrome

;)

[lala_rawraw]

78. You are a troll... this is clear...

Because you have no desire to actually read or respond with respect to what you read. Why are you in this discussion?

[KissMyAsscroft]

87. Yeah, I'm a troll with over 1000 posts...

You know, it's funny. You would think I called the pope gay or something, but all I did was challenge the word feminism. I declared that women were equal and not victims.

Nowhere have I said anything negative towards women. I have only been talking about the term feminism.

It's amazing how so many people are getting worked up over something that they obviously have never stopped to question.

That's what happens with -isms, folks. You start mindlessly spewing whatever you have heard and attacking anyone who challenges it.

It's pretty pathetic.

I hope that people reading these threads are seeing how "feminism" has become a mindless buzzword that is thinly veiled hatred towards men (we are all rapists and killers and the patriarchy, and women are all weak victims....)

I believe women are equal. Who is the real sexist here?

[tishaLA]

93. That's not what Women's Studies does though

You'd know that if you took a class in a Women's Studies classroom.

Let me give an example: when I teach "Rip Van Winkle," a short story by a male author, I talk about the family politics and the narrative viewpoint about Rip and dame Van Winkle. If you're familiar with the story, you know that Rip was quite lazy and couldn't really support his family effectively, although he loved to hang out with the male "gossips" in town. When he comes back after his twenty year slumber, he has become a "village patriarch," as the story says, simply because he has managed to outlive his contemporaries and had no drive.

In contrast to Irving's portrayal of Rip, he portrays Dame Van Winkle as shrewish, nagging, and hectoring--so much so that, at the end of the story, Irving tells us that it's not important that the American Revolution took place in Rip's absence: Rip doesn't care whether he lives in a democracy or a monarchy (he sees George III and Washington as the same, anyhow), just as long as he is free from Dame van Winkle's "petticoat government." Because Dame van Winkle died while Rip was gone, of course, Rip gets his wish.

So I ask students to think about the gender politics of this piece by asking them to consider the narrative viewpoint, irony, and its message about political (non-) engagement. Feminism opens up discussions like these and allows students to explore these topics in ways they couldn't otherwise. And I do this despite or because of the fact that my scholarship is almost entirely about male authors. Feminist studies, in other words, investigate male texts as surely as they do female ones. In fact, I think it is more rewarding to look at canonical make texts with a feminist lens.

[KissMyAsscroft]

97. Than why call it women's studies?

Is that knowledge only important to women? I'm a guy. Why isn't it important that I know this?

Why not just teach everything in a uniform way and let college students figure it out for themselves?

[tishaLA]

102. It's called feminist scholarship

I would teach it that way under any circumstance. That's what women's studies has done: given us a new way to look at history, at literature, at philosophical inquiry, at science, etc.

It is not "only important to women," though; it is important to everyone open to looking at new modes of exploring any discipline, just as studies of sexuality and race do. I always do teach it this way and let everyone, male and female, figure it out for him- or herself.

[ultraist]

127. "nor are they oppressed."

LMAO!

:rofl:

Since when did women start getting equal pay for equal work? When did the glass ceiling get removed? Do you have ANY facts to support your claims?

[lala_rawraw]

51. Yes, but the model no longer works

My argument has nothing to do with Republicans. Where are you getting this from? Please re-read what I said.

[omega minimo]

19. Women's studies would help you

understand how your comment reflects "blame the victim" mentality

[KissMyAsscroft]

65. Women ARENT VICTIMS.

Do all the women on this board really feel like they are victimized by the world?

[xmas74]

113. Women aren't victims?

You go out there and try to compete for a job sometime. I go into interviews and I talk to the other candidates. I have more experience, more education and more overall qualifications than the other candidates. Yet who gets the job? The white male right out of college.
And when I was raped in college by a football player whose side did the school take? It sure the hell wasn't mine.
And don't call me a manhater because I'm not. But I do get sick and tired of my male coworkers showing their paychecks to me and me realizing that I make less money (even though I have been there longer and have more experience). I get tired of the officers coming into work and saying "Get me some coffee, honey. I want...". Do they tell any of my male coworkers to do that? No. Do I constantly get overlooked for promotions? Yes. Do my male coworkers get promoted? Yes. Do I have better qualifications? Yes (and they have even admitted to my qualifications being better).
I get tired of this crap every single day. I get even more frustrated when I hear of men denying that it even happens.

[noamnety]

122. My daughter just rejected a huge scholarship from a school

in part because of a similar sexual assault case. There were multiple accusations against a school employee, nobody at the school took it seriously. They had demonstrations (from what she heard). The school was finally forced to let him go - but one of the high level administrators apparently felt bad for him, so they let the guy move into their house, so he was still hanging around the small community. The women who had been assaulted couldn't get away from him without leaving the school. The lack of response from the administration was enough of a concern that - in addition to another issue regarding them restructuring their program - they lost her as a student. Their loss.

Unrelated to that, one of the weirder things in this thread is the confusion between recognizing that not everyone has equal rights - and idenitifying oneself primarily as "a victim." Those who fight for equal rights acknowledge the need for improvements and equality, but I don't think the fighters view themselves mainly as weak helpless victims. If anything, it's empowering. It's such an odd view, to think that everyone who has experienced discrimination will shut up about it unless they have a "victim mentality."

I can't imagine anyone on the forum (excepting trolls) claiming that those who are fighting for a paper trail, or fighting against disenfranchisement, are doing so because they have a victim mentality.

[xmas74]

128. Exactly.

The tone of the post made me angry. I don't consider myself to be a victim. I feel that I have gotten over what has happened to me and that I have moved on with my life. But every time I hear arguments like the previous one I become angry. It's that type of mentality that makes it harder for women to speak out and feel that they can be heard. Our voices are still being silenced to this day.

[KissMyAsscroft]

2. "the attack from the other side"

My point exactly.

[lala_rawraw]

7. Okay, if you knew fem, then you would know

That the other side is in reference to a very specific group, namely, the American patriarchal system of government... in other words, people in power who use racial, gender, and economic backgrounds to create fabricated lines of separation and accorded freedoms. That would include women, such as Condi. This is not male vs. female. Good god, ask before you comment.

[KissMyAsscroft]

33. Ahhh yes....the patriarchy.

Is this the same one that accounts for most new businesses being run by women?

Wow. That patriarchy is doing a pretty shitty job.

[lala_rawraw]

50. Ha, what is this confusion 101?

Look, you are the one attacking a gender not me. I have yet to say a negative thing about men... show me where? If you have something to contribute, then do so, otherwise no need to invovle yourself.

[beam me up scottie]

58. Where is your proof?

I want to see what percentage of women own businesses and how much of the wealth actually belongs to them.

[intheflow]

3. Here here, lala!

I was also responding when the thread was locked. So please excuse me as I mildly hijack this thread to include this April 2005 Bureau of Labor Statistics report on pay inequity demonstrating that on average women working full time in the US earn on 80 cents to every dollar men earn. It is not vanity to want to be able to earn as much as a man, it is survival.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf

Thanks--I'll look forward to reading your full manifesto when you publish it! :hi:

[KissMyAsscroft]

88. Those statistics are BUNK.

They take all of the hours, all of the workers, split the sexes and divide it.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Furthermore, part of the reason that a lot of those numbers are skewed is that men take jobs that women don't want.

Posting statistics doesn't prove anything, either on this board or in academia.

"In God we trust, the rest of you need facts."

[entanglement]

4. I agree it needs another name

I think womanism has already been used. Eveism, maybe? :+

[Cleita]

5. How about human?

We aren't a separate species just because our plumbing is indoors instead of outdoors. This is what people miss. We deserve to have the same rights and get the same respect that anyone else gets.

[lala_rawraw]

8. I am leaning toward something more

Like Humanism, but that is already a well established philosphy... I just need to find a way to name it and incorporate it into the American cultural fabricated divisiveness.

[expatriate]

10. brava!

At this point, "feminism" has been made such a dirty word by neo-cons that I can't really see how the term can be used without dragging along all that baggage. And I think emphasizing that women want the SAME rights and SAME respect that men get instead of SPECIAL rights and SPECIAL respect, which is what the neo-cons want people to believe, would be most helpful. At this point, many people, because of the neo-con movement's propaganda, see feminism as a demand for special privileges, not equal rights.

And yes, Lala, I'm all for the idea that feminism should go after anti-feminism wherever is is - even if it does mean criticizing a woman. If it's all about equality, why give women special dispensation to be anti-feminist just because of their gender? That's setting the entire purpose of feminism back.

[lala_rawraw]

70. I saw Camile

Discussing Condi with a bit too much respect. That sent me into a fit. How could such a thing as that abusive and lying thing ever be discussed in any way with any respect from someone like Camile. Unreal. Boxer had it right when she called Condi on her bullshit.

[tishaLA]

74. I don't consider Paglia a feminist

She shows herself time and again as someone who is not committed to feminism, whatever she might claim. She is far more committed to making sure she is written about.

[lala_rawraw]

82. Yes... I miss Simone...

The concept of the "other" is my driving force. Are we all not the "other" in everything we do and experience?

[KissMyAsscroft]

98. It's not about equality or else it wouldn't specify a gender.

What don't you guys get about this? Is it that difficult to grasp?

Would everyone on this board be willing to dropping the feminine label and adopting a gender neutral cause?

Of course not, which is my entire point. It's about special status and payback.

And it's bullshit that anyone tolerates it.

[KissMyAsscroft]

37. BINGO.

This is my point. Hallelujah. Someone gets it.

[KissMyAsscroft]

36. Fine.

Don't get pissed when men create "Men-ism" and decide it is ok to use tanks and weapons to destroy your movement.

Oh wait...that's violent isn't it? That would be sexist right? That would be an unfair and pointless division of gender....

Hypocrisy.

[lala_rawraw]

57. You are clearly very confused...

and have a great deal of anger toward women, but this thread is not for such a discussion... you might want to start a new thread... k? really, just disolve.

[KissMyAsscroft]

90. You won't be so lucky.

NOW!, since I am male and obviously of higher stature and because I am white, and make more money, and therefore part of the patriarchy....you will now be silent!!!!!!!!!!!

Now off to make more money at my desk job and high five my white brothers of the patriarchy!!!!!

[entanglement]

86. FYI I'm male so your accusation of hypocrisy is amusing n/t

[Protagoras]

9. Well articulated Lala

I look forward to your manifesto.

[lala_rawraw]

60. thank you:D

[mistertrickster]

11. YES! Thanks for opening this up. You're exactly right--the old

paradigm doesn't make any sense because the feminists basically got what they wanted the first time around.

Feminists need to focus on issues that adversly affect women--nowadays, that means living wage, health care, child care, and fully funded Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

It DOESN'T mean starting yet another women's studies program at a local college or ranting about how the phallus is the root of all evil . . . as if Oprah is more discriminated against than some poor white boy from Arkansas because he's part of the "white male power structure."

Feminists and progressives in general need to focus on what matters--the money. Get the money and the power will follow.

[omega minimo]

15. Could you fill in what you mean by this?

"....because the feminists basically got what they wanted the first time around."

:hi:

[mistertrickster]

20. Well, it's an over-generalization, but winning Roe v Wade, general

acceptance of working women, more awareness of and legal protection against domestic violence, etc.

The huge irony is that Condi Rice could not be what she is without 60's / 70's feminism, but she's conveniently forgotten that now.

[lala_rawraw]

59. I am not sure I understand that comment either n/t

[Eloriel]

94. Yeah, if so, I sure missed THAT memo.

Do tell.

[mistertrickster]

116. In terms of feminism's overall goals, I think they reached them very

well. We don't have full equality, granted. Hillary C. still gets bashed for an off-hand remark about not staying home and baking cookies, but the fact that she's a serious contender for President in '08 means that a lot of progress has been made.

It could have never happened in the Eisenhower era . . .

[libnnc]

16. I think Women's Studies are very important

Part of our problem now is that we have teeage girls and twenty somethings whose only exposure to "feminist studies" is Rush Limpballs false characterization of (in my opinion) nonexistant "femi-nazis".

We have a whole generation of young women who don't know that their great grandmothers couldn't cast a ballot, have legal custody of their kids in a divorce, open up a bank account, have a credit card--let alone have any kind of reproducive freedom.

Women's Studies courses aren't the problem. Falling asleep at the switch and letting the GOP and Phyllis Schlaffly have too much face time on the tee-vee is what got us in this situation of having to defend "feminism".

[Lucky Luciano]

18. There is such a thing as femi-nazis, but...

they are definitely in the minority among feminists.

My mother is definitely a feminist....One day my mother was told by a feminazi that she was oppressing women - why? Because my mother does not sleep with or have any attraction to women at all - and in particular to this lady! To say that a woman is oppressing women because she is hetero is definitely feminazi! This woman clearly behaves as badly as many men that go around making passes at women! I have never met a true "feminazi" in my life though.

[libnnc]

25. I think feminism is the least of that woman's problems

she was just using politics to "shame" your mom into sleeping with her. I'm a lesbian and that woman's actions creep me out.

[omega minimo]

28. So, rather than call her a "feminazi"

try "creep'!

How bout "jerk"?

"Bully"?




:bounce:

[Lucky Luciano]

30. I see what you are saying here and below...

but if someone is being a creep or jerk using the pretext of feminism to back them up, then....

Well, I suppose this crazy woman could have been labeled as a "Crazy woman that gives feminism a bad name."

[omega minimo]

63. There ya go!

:rofl:

[KissMyAsscroft]

41. Exactly.

Now are you starting to get it?

[omega minimo]

26. "Feminazi" is Dittohead Rushspeak-- why would you choose to use it?

"Feminazi" is the buzzword of the marketing campaign that demonized "Feminism" in the 80's.

"Feminazi" is offensive on SO many levels-- how would men like being called "Machonazis"?

The word ""Feminazi" is the reason that some well/intentioned people on this thread convince themselves to abandon "Feminism," rather than reclaim it, and come up with new "framing" to combat the hatejock brainwashing that filtered down the culture to even people like you who don't think about the origin.

"Feminazi" is NOT innocuous or generic. Please don't perpetuate the lies.

[KissMyAsscroft]

43. How would I like to be called Macho-nazi?

Well if I called my self a Macho-ist and pissed off enough people that weren't in my group than I couldn't really bitch about it now could I?

And I'm not defending Rush, so I will save you the trouble of that Bush style counter attack.

[beam me up scottie]

46. Why wouldn't you defend rush?

You seem to have learned everything you know about feminism from his show.
Remember
"Why does Rush have any female listeners? Really think about that. Would women in the 70s tolerate that garbage? No. But modern women listen to that shit and they actually sign up for it! They actually AGREE that feminism has run amuck"

[KissMyAsscroft]

101. They have.

And so do a lot men. And so do I. And I hate Rush. I am a Democrat. All of these things can exist at the same time.

Mind-boggling isn't it?

Guess thats what happens when you needlessly divide the sexes.

People take sides.

[beam me up scottie]

107. It's mind boggling that you

believe women listen to rush because his views on "feminazis" are correct.
What does annie have to say about feminism? How many of her talking points have you used?

[Lars39]

49. You are a white male pissing off a lot of people IN your group.

[KissMyAsscroft]

110. People are pissed off? Why? because they have to think?

I'm challenging their view on something and they can't defend it. All of their arguements reveal an obvious hypocrisy and double standard so they have to attack me personally.

That's what happens when you challenge an -ism that is no longer relevant. People defend it with rage. It's not surprising.

We really have to start examing ourselves and figuring out where our values are at, and if we really practice them. Are we holding on to views that we do not truly understand?

That's what a discussion forum is for.

And I would just like to had that there is a reason that young males are leaving the party, and starting to identify the party as a female only party. A large part of that is Rush, but it isn't all Rush. Part of it is feminism overshooting the mark and demonizing males.

So far on this threat men have been called "rapists that hate women, murderers that pray on women, the patriarchy, old rich white men" etc. And this is supposed to get our party young male votes? I'm a Democrat and this shit pisses me off.

I am not trying to denigrate Feminism's accomplishments in the past, but I think it is time to reazlie that men are now very willing to treat everyone equally and due to globalization that the "white male" stereotype no longer holds.

We're in this together, and feminism is causing us to divide along gender lines at a time when we need to be united.

[lala_rawraw]

72. Hey, you are trying to flame this thread into a lock...

Stop your shit now. I kid you not... I have been nothing but respectful, but you are really starting to piss me off.

[Lars39]

75. Good call.

Pattern emerges.

[KissMyAsscroft]

96. So what?

People get irritated when they can't defend their positions.:hi:

[mistertrickster]

24. I don't think Women's Studies are a problem--I just don't think they're

key to a real solution. I'd rather see ALL students getting exposed to women's suffrage in history class rather than having it segregated to the students in a WS's program. I'd rather have ALL students reading women authors in Lit than having them isolated into a "women's authors" course.

But I'm turning myself into "flame bait" here and derailing the thread in the process.

My point is basic agreement that feminism needs to re-define itself to the conditions of today rather than refighting past battles.

And it might find that it has more in common these days with CLASS struggle than with gender struggle.

[omega minimo]

31. Sexist Just Kidding play on your name reconsidered (insert here)

:rofl:

Looks to me like there is a philosophy-- maybe an idealistic notion-- in your comment. It would benefit the general population of students to have women's history and women's cultural contributions integrated into the curriculum.

The question is, is the playing field level or not. The answer is no.

Important to consider the function that Women's Studies provide. The argument would be do they ghettoize women or are women ghettoized and the WS departments serve to correct that?

Look at DU-- the women's issues forum is a separate area. Yet this discussion today is heavily visited and GREAT to have men involved. Women who were uncomfortable in GD and GDP recently created a "Women's Room" Group. The discussion thread on that raised concerns that women were ghettoizing themselves. They got tired of dealing with crude men on DU. Some of us opined that they should stay in the general population and integrate "women's" threads into common awareness.

Thanks for answering my other request for more info. Not sure we would agree on what constitutes "past battles" you consider "won."

"And it might find that it has more in common these days with CLASS struggle than with gender struggle."

Again, I appreciate your intention. The truth is, feminism has more in common with race struggle than class. The bigotry of sexism is as pervasive, permeated and IGNORABLE (by those not subjected to it) in our society as racism is.

:evilgrin:

[tishaLA]

35. But that's precisely what has happened because of gender studies

I'm working on my dissertation right now and I could never do the kind of research I do in literary studies were it not for women's studies classrooms. And, in fact, it is not just a matter of studying female writers because I deal mostly with the traditional white male canon, perhaps because I work in early American literature; it is about examining literature through a feminist lens. This is one of the great gifts of the feminist movement--one of the things that has been around at least since Woolf wrote "A Room of One's Own"--and one of the things I pass along to the undergrads I teach. I simply cannot imagine teaching literature to my students without asking them to think about gender and sexuality in the text and, when my students in or out of a women's studies classroom finish my class, they cannot, either. Women's Studies have had that effect on almost all humanities scholars and students.

It is my sense that WS has changed significantly during the past 10 years, when I have been an undergrad and a graduate student. Most of the second wave feminism has been revised and complicated by an insistent examination about the subject of women's studies and the complex ways gender studies intersects with race and sexuality. It has also been altered by the debates about the merits surrounding poststructuralism and essentialism--some say for the better, others say for the worse. In my experience, academia has insufficiently examined class issues--or at least humanities classes have--because the vocabulary is insufficient, perhaps, and it has never garnered the critical zeitgeist important to make its study evolve. But I don't accept the notion that class (or race or sexuality) somehow supersedes gender in any way. I think WS classrooms should be open to the exploration of all those categories and foster a dialog about gender as a point of intersection with other social forces.

I should also say I have taught women's studies courses, so I am undoubtedly biased about this. We in academia may not be perfect, but we are not the portrait you are trying to paint, either.

[Eloriel]

100. I concur entirely with Suzanne Pharr in her book

Homophobia: A Tool of Sexism. She argues, beautifully IMO, that sexism and homophobia and racism are all of a piece. They are all connected and all oppressions basically work the same way. I think it's a superb book esp. for its exposition of how oppression works (tokenism, etc., etc.) -- are you familiar with it?

I'm not anywhere near academia (thank heaven, for me, which isn't intended as a diss), but I have to tell you I have a SEVERE problem with what I've come to understand as "postmodern feminism." Very bad juju, to coin a phrase. Smacks of the same infiltration by the right as has happened nearly everywhere else we turn.

[tishaLA]

109. Sorry you feel that way about pomo feminism

As I, and virtually every feminist academic I know, would describe myself as one. It may be that you don't know it well enough--not meant to be insulting, BTW, but it's just something I have seen--or it might be the rarefied vocabulary of poststructuralist / postmodernist inquiry.

It might be an important point, though, because academic and grassroots feminisms used to work together much more closely than they do now. I sense that the postmodernist vocabulary has been off-putting to many non-academics and it's probably something we should look at. But it's hardly an infiltration of the right; it's about ways of theorizing subjectivity, agency, and identificatory practices.

FWIW, I really like the Pharr book, too. I haven't read it for years, but I remember enjoying it. Perhaps I need to look at it again so I can learn from her anew.

[mistertrickster]

114. See, I just have to disagree with Pharr (with all due respect). Elton

John is richer than Midas. How much real discrimination does he face? No doubt, he gets snide digs at his masculinity from time to time. But what hotel is not going to rent him the presidential suite? What country club is not going to admit him? What housing community will not let him live among them? What church is not going to accept his donation? What political party is going to reject his offer of help or refuse to let him vote?

Yes, he faces the discrimination of being viewed as "the other," but I get that every day by being a Democrat in Kansas. In terms of real obstacles that keep someone from achieving their goals, a rich gay man, a rich woman, a rich African-American is much less discriminated against than a poor anyone.

[mistertrickster]

126. Good post. I hadn't thought about the issue from that angle before.

nt

[KissMyAsscroft]

44. The fact that you are worried about stating the obvious truth..

and getting flamed for it, shows what modern feminism has become.

And I think it's evil.

[KissMyAsscroft]

40. You learn all of that in history class.

I have never taken a gender based class in my life and I knew all of that.

Women's studies courses are just bullshit courses that waste women's time. What can you do with a degree in Women's Studies? Why, teach Women's studies of course!

Learn something useful for Gods sake.

[tishaLA]

66. I'm sorry you find women's studies courses useless

although you have never bothered to take one. I'm not sure how you arrived at that judgment, but you are welcome to your opinion.

I'm curious, though, why you suggest that people "learn something useful." What precisely constitutes usefulness in this case? Is it something that appeals to the marketplace? Something that treats higher education as if it were a vocational school?

I'd have a hard time saying that many courses, including courses in Philosophy, are "useful," but I have taken them and I encourage undergrads to take them because I think a university is about expanding one's horizons, learning things that challenge modes of thought, and exploring things that might not seem immediately relevant to one's life. That has been the educational tradition, at any rate. Unfortunately, as more and more students think business degrees offer expedient paths into corporate America, "learning" has taken a back seat to "professional preparedness."

[beam me up scottie]

67. "Learn something useful for Gods sake"

Like what, hatred and bigotry? That seems to be the only thing you've learned. This is a progressive forum, remember?

"I have never taken a gender based class in my life and I knew all of that.

Women's studies courses are just bullshit courses that waste women's time. What can you do with a degree in Women's Studies? Why, teach Women's studies of course!

Learn something useful for Gods sake"



How is it that you're still here?

[KissMyAsscroft]

92. FYI

I tell the same thing to my MALE history major friends.

But hey, don't let me interfere with your persecution parade.

[beam me up scottie]

99. You're the one on parade.

Just look at your comments.

Telling a woman to "LEARN SOMETHING USEFUL"

I particularly like this one:

"Maybe if you paid attention to why people like Rush have such an easy time of convincing guys that Democratic women hate them, you might actually learn something."

So, we should study rush and others like him?

Please explain.

[lala_rawraw]

68. And Condi, and

The rest. The problem is they want it both ways... they want to benefit from the movement, but they want to presume they are above such things.

I think it is time to say that not all women are part of the movement just as we know many men are. It is also time to openly call such women out on a daily basis. No more of this "condi, condi..." as though her womanhood somehow excused her from her discrimination policies at Stanford. She had the lowest percentage of female professors and tenures for females on her watch... the entire Stanford student body and faculty filed a petition to have her removed.

She is officially not a feminist, not a woman, not even a human... would a human, a feminist, a woman ever allow her oil business to murder hundreds of thousands of people in Niger?

You see, the fact that she is a minority both in ethnicity and gender seems to publicly excuse her... it is affirmative reactionism. She is a patriarchal machine cog... so this is not about men vs. women, this is about a new model for feminism to address the dislodged in-humans among us.

[tishaLA]

71. It has never been my belief that

any feminist has thought of Dr. Rice as a feminist or that she should not be criticized. In fact, many prominent feminists in and out of academia have lambasted her repeatedly, but they have never resorted to some of the borderline misogyny I sometimes see on "progressive" message boards.

[lala_rawraw]

81. Not enough, not enough

NOW, for example, of which I have been a member since I was 20 (13 years) is issue oriented, not movement oriented at this point.

Imagine if NOW took out a page in every paper across the country saying "this is not representative of women, Americans, humanity" with regard to Condi?

The issue orientation has created so many sub-sets of focus that the humanity of the movement has splintered into tid bits.

I think it is more important now to focus on a larger scale... humanity vs. criminality. If we focus on specific differences, we lose against the far better organized criminality we are fighting.

[KissMyAsscroft]

39. Holy Shit! Give this man a COOKIE!!!!!

It's funny. I'm a 25 year old white guy from the south and I am not part of any male power structure. Women and men both pass me on the social ladder. And they both DESERVE it, because the did something better than me or they have a talent.

[Book Lover]

12. Are you familiar with Gerda Lerner?

If not, I recommend The Creation of Patriarchy and The Creation of Feminist Consciousness as historical resources. She describes how we women have been doing what you propose, redefining what we currently call feminism and how long we have been doing it. Excellent scholarship and clear language.

[Eloriel]

103. I have been trying to remember her name for weeks (off and on)

Thanks so much. Creation of Patriarchy is fabulous. I think I have to re-acquire it.

[Lucky Luciano]

13. I have wondered if the enemies of feminism have included a

large number of women.

There are huge numbers of women that have rewarded men for behaving badly. Why would a man change his behavior if he is being rewarded for it?

[lala_rawraw]

76. I think the social

Model that we live in is intrinsically in direct opposition to feminism. It is not so much about male vs. female as it is about power vs. rights, respect vs. hate, money vs. genorisity... etc.

Thanks for helping me flesh this out ... I need to test some of this.

[KissMyAsscroft]

95. yes, because there is only the feminist borg and other non-feminists

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

You are dividing the world between feminists and non feminists yet I am the sexist?

Amazing how you people can live with the cognitive dissonance.

But I will speak slowly because you are obviously a victim and deserve special status and laws for your benefit, (until you are suddenly a woman who doesn't need a man for anything!!!!!)

Pick one.

[Lucky Luciano]

112. first, i am a dude

second, my comment is not so much about feminists and non-feminists.

It is about women that reward men for bad behavior. There are plenty of feminists who probably fall into this category on occassion.

You are a young man. When you go out and party and you see the guys who take home the most women, they are often the guys who are the "bad-boys" and what not who do not respect women all that much. I will admit I had my player days when I was younger (though not the badboy tattoo artist drug dealing type) - ok I will even admit that I have not completely given that up...but that is beside the point. The point is that these bad boys and alphas are often rewarded with a lot of sex early on in their formative years...well, they then take that attitude (the bad boy one that worked for them) with them into the corporate world where alpha behavior is a requirment for getting ahead.....and then feminists expect these men to suddenly change their ways? Not gonna happen - the attitude has been burned into their brain - they have already learned how to get rewarded from women - by holding them under their thumb. So, my untested hypothesis is that female acceptance of a lot of male bad behavior sometimes leads to inequities they face. You have to admit there are *some* inequities although it is not as bad as 100 years ago.

Self proclaimed feminists are often guilty of this as well. Some have been cheated on by some guy - but they then let him back into their life - rewarding bad behavior again...


Of course, I have seen many "doormat" guys reward extremely bad behavior from women as well....As part of a study testing my hypothesis above, it would be interesting to include a study of these men to see how far they get in the corporate world. I would certainly posit that these men tend to be the ones that do not get far.

[Eloriel]

115. Of COURSE

I call them "Patriarchy's women," because they live to defend, uphold, promote and most of participate in patriarchy. Because they serve as tokens in the hierarchy, they get special privileges -- privileges all their peers cannot possibly hope to achieve or acquire for themselves. (There isn't room enough at the top for everyone!).

Again, Suzanne Pharr explains all this so very well in her wonderful book, Homophobia: A Tool of Sexism. It is SO worth having...and referring to again and again.

I haven't read it in ages, but I thought another very worthwhile take on Patriarchy's Women can be found in Goddess in Every Woman by Bolen. One of the goddess archetypes she explores IS Phyllis Schaffly and Camille Paglia and all their sad ilk.

And boy is this well said:
There are huge numbers of women that have rewarded men for behaving badly. Why would a man change his behavior if he is being rewarded for it?

[izzybeans]

21. What was the comment on narcissism? I agree with you but am a bit confused

Some might say that narcissism as a broader cultural phenomenon has undermined the feminist critique, which itself isn't narcissistic. i hope this is what the OP of the locked thread had in mind, otherwise...I'm glad I missed it.

The idea that scantily clad pop stars and celebrities (the culture of narcissism in vulgarized form-Christopher lasch) is itself a form of liberation overlooks the gawking men, the inescapable lens of the paparazzi, and the corporate industry defining the trends. It distracts from the power of critique of such objectification by celebrating it.

As far as renaming feminisms I'm not sure. I know that women's studies has started to generalize a bit and classify itself in some small way as gender studies instead because it has opened up critiques and studies of masculinities even.

[lala_rawraw]

84. I cannot find the post....

It was locked while I was responding...anyone know where it is?

[izzybeans]

105. Was it in the thread called What good is feminism? or something like it?

[beam me up scottie]

111. Do you mean his op?

"What good comes from feminism? I don't get what it is trying to address. I do not believe that women are discriminated against, and I do not believe that there is a "glass ceiling" I think it is all BS. Half of my friends are women with high paying jobs,(most of them make more than I do) and they deserve it.

When I am in class listening to a professor lecture, there are great long pauses in their speaking, where you can tell that they are trying hard not to offend anyone by their language. It is distracting. And women will stop the lectures all the time to complain about some sexual bias. And it is always something ridiculous, such as a reaction to an historical text of some sort.

Since when did feminism become a license to stifle free speech simply because it offends you?

I believe modern feminism is the height of narcissism.

Flame away, but I am sick of watching this absurdity drive people away from the Dems."

[bennywhale]

22. How about the 'womankind movement'

I'm a bloke so don't know what this sounds like to you?

[jedr]

29. as a man, I've stated this before;

Why are the only democrats with "balls" women? As I watch the men of this party stumble and fall, I think the time is right for the women of this party to take the lead and feminism is only part of the program... I would rather my grand-daughter look to Barb Boxer , Polusi, and Clinton as role models ;than dress like a whore to get a rich man and settle down. The 70's are gone ,and new tactics are needed ...good luck

[Kathy in Cambridge]

38. Why do I get to hear echoes of Rush and Ann Coulter on your thread?

Amazing that these men with deep-seated misogyny call themselves progressive. Sounds like a mommy complex...

[mzmolly]

47. I didn't realize human rights issues were "narcissistic?"

I think I've officially heard it all now. :eyes:

[Lars39]

52. The "narcissistic" tag was given by KissMyAsscroft

in another thread.

[lala_rawraw]

85. I agree with you... which is why I responded n/t

[mzmolly]

48. I didn't realize human rights issues were "narcissistic?"

I think I've officially heard it all now. :eyes:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

108. And women aren't...

descriminated against, too! Now you have heard it all. ;)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3661090

[Hell Hath No Fury]

118. I agree with you on #1...

100% -- just as I think Christians need to call out "christians" and gays need to call out the closeted GOP who vote anti-gay. There is nothing I hate worse that someone who has gotten to where they are on the backs of others and who in turn claims all is well now and attempts to "pull up the ladder" on those still left behind.

As far as the labeling, I am not a big fan of caving in to the RW -- because that is what renaming feminist or liberalism is, to me. I am a feminist. I am a liberal. I will not let the GOP take that from me. Because whatever new term/label you or anyone creates you know damn well they will demonize that too. And it then becomes just another thing for us to run away from in response.

When do we say "Enough!"? Lauren Bacall on Larry King has the right attitude -- she did not hesitate for one moment to proudly claim she was a liberal.

We can define modern feminism as feminism.

[beam me up scottie]

125. BRAVO!

I love the pulling up the ladder behind them analogy, it works for anti-immigration advocates too.

I also a FEMINIST, a LIBERAL and an ATHEIST and I refuse to call myself anything else because of some imaginary baggage that the reichwing tries to put on us. There is nothing wrong with being anyone of those things, on the contrary, I am proud of being a free thinker. It is far worse to parrot the talking heads without thinking about the issues.

[izzybeans]

123. Wow it seems a serious discussion can't be had on such an important

issue without some disruption.

Rather than wonder what good is feminism I think I'd like to discuss what good comes of it. Naysayers want to discuss it in terms and under the constraints of electioneering. If it does not bring smashing victories then it must be no good. But the good that comes out of it is clearly much more lasting and unfortunately much less imperceptable than that. Feminism is not a monolithic ism, just as most other ism's ism is plural. There are multiple ways to do it, and the recognition of that multiplicity provides its strength.

If someone were to essentialize any identity category, even the words male or heterosexual as having in-born traits, then their denial of multiplicity is not particularly feminist. I've yet to see anyone do that here, even though the charge has been made, and in a way that contradicts itself. The charge that "you are essentializing me as I am mr. male" implicitly begs to be part of the feminist sensibility but denies the validity of feminist critiques simulataneously (because of course feminists are narcissists :+ ). That charge falls down under the weight of its own dissonance. Binaries male/female gay/straight and the things they signify will have very different meanings between contexts up and down our stratified social world. It'd be hard to say "all X's do Y" because it would be utterly false. And no one has said that. That's the good comes of feminism-the want for greater specificity in our making claims; where X does Y under Z circumstances attached to specific symbols. But this the academic grounds for feminism.

As far as a manifesto goes: as long as it falls short of the SCUM manifesto, in terms of its secret wishes for hegemony, and hence a world unchanged only reversed; count me in as one avid reader.

[Moderator]

130. Locking

This is continuation of a flame-war from another, locked thread, and has gone on long enough.