General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumswhen has acting like "ladies" and, "asking nicely" ever advanced women's rights?
was directed to a thread I had not noticed a couple of days ago about how EVERYONE hates enviros and feminists. sadly, the expected support was right on schedule. enviros and feminists (particularly feminists) ruin things, turn people off, because of the way the message of equal rights, reproductive autonomy, etc., is presented. (of course, the fact that the people saying this are doing so in the same manner apparently escapes their notice, but that is another issue)
so, it got me to thinking: what rights, exactly, have women EVER won by asking nicely, by being demure little ladies, and patiently hoping the great white father will deign to allow us one modicum of independence, of autonomy, of equal pay, etc? surely there must be some, or we would not keep hearing that the reason we don't get things is because of the way we ask. so, please, sister and brother DU'ers--refresh my memory. WHAT RIGHTS have women EVER gotten by acting like milquetoasts?
thanks in advance
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)niyad
(113,303 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)well, feeling kinda high, lol.
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)niyad
(113,303 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)are willing to give us???
well, there is a thought.
i will wait along side of you for these men to tell us just how we can speak so nicely, that they will be able to hear what we are saying.
you know, a huge smile on our face while we talk about our rapes, or our harrassment in the street. no no, being angry at being raped or harrassed in the street turns people off. our total bad.
or maybe happy faces talking about the children and women kidnapped and enslaved in the sex trafficking. yes. butterflies.
oh, and surely we can serves some cake while we talk about pay discrepency, and male privilege, and patriarchy.
ismnotwasm
(41,980 posts)Hmm not that either. Oh wait--meh, that that either.
I got nothin'.
niyad
(113,303 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)Gotta love the good Governor
niyad
(113,303 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)niyad
(113,303 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it is that simple.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)(I'm sure you are conversant with this niyad, but for all others )
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
"A tone argument is an argument used in discussions, sometimes by Concern trolls and sometimes as a Derailment, in which it is suggested that feminists would be more successful if only they expressed themselves in a more pleasant tone. This is also sometimes described as catching more flies with honey than with vinegar, a particular variant of the tone argument.
The tone argument is a form of derailment, or a red herring, because the tone of a statement is independent of the content of the statement in question, and calling attention to it distracts from the issue at hand. Drawing attention to the tone rather than content of a statement can allow other parties to avoid engaging with sound arguments presented in that statement, thus undermining the original party's attempt to communicate and effectively shutting them down."
niyad
(113,303 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and i gotta tell you, he was not using a lot of honey while lecturing me on honey.
why is he allowed to be all that in vinegar demanding i be all that in honey.
niyad
(113,303 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)suddenly came out when it became obvious he was losing the argument.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)in a very vinegary way
Squinch
(50,949 posts)It's the attack of the 1890's Finishing School Comportment teachers!!!!!
niyad
(113,303 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,980 posts)A common complaint is that Democrats need to stop being 'nice' get some serious real on repukes I finds this supremely ironic.
niyad
(113,303 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)stick.
i got more vinegar from his reply.
niyad
(113,303 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)wine.
i say ... shit catches the most flies
du, gotta love it.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Sometimes it may well be trolling but it is so widespread and consistent that I have to believe that along the way we have been picking up voters who are primarily tone driven who cannot "hear" any message until it is packaged in a way they can consume and will accept ANY and ALL arguments as reasonable IF they can be spoken with a smile and in the right cadence and tone.
I call for those folks to be utterly ignored and safely so. There is little risk they will find the current incarnation of TeaPubliKlans tolerable so they will tune out and good riddance to the content and real life condition ignoring whiners.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)refused to be thought of as less but did so with quit dignity. You don't have to be aggressive to stand up for yourself. All Rosa Parks did was refuse to go to the back of the bus. She didn't insist that every person on that bus agree with her or go to hell.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)did pretty well advancing revolutionary change with politeness. The notion that activists must be rude and impolite to change society is very misguided.
niyad
(113,303 posts)describe the fight for women's rights. could you give us some specific examples of that rudeness?
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)The last one I recall is someone being called blind to racism for defending FEMEN. So far in this thread you have a winner, someone has already used ignore. Kind of proves the OP in the other thread, which is degenerating into a load of insulting insinuations. And this discussion will devolve into me pointing out insults and you probably insisting it isn't rude.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)are cluesless, wouldnt that make you blind to the racism issue with femen? or do you blindly defend while being clueless. hmmmmm
too much sugah, not enough?
ya, i heard lots of insults, starting with screed from the OP and working down thru the few men that cheered.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)without personally attacking the person whom one is debating.
You've provided me with another excellent example:
So far, your first reply labels me clueless without really addressing anything.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. It's just rude behavior, but doesn't actually mean anything.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)I suppose that is rude of me to say also
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)I'm not, nor am I clueless. And it wasn't a man who attacked me in that thread, btw.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)with the information we have gathered. who is doing what ect... yet, you walked right to one of my posts, and was ready for another attack. why? this is twice you have done it and i see a couple other threads that you are sending a loud and clear message.
i do not mess with you. i like you. i have been respectful to you.
you have misrepresented my posts and refuse to acknowledge the mistake after i respectfully, kindly pointed it out.
you did great things for me. you listened to me when i needed. you were there. i appreciate it.
but, i am not gonna battle you VC on whatever quest you are on right now.
i have been thinking about it and trying to figure it out. but, the best i can do is conclude, you are an awesome woman. we do not agree on things. that is cool. but whatever is going on, i cannot play in it for different reasons. i like you too much.
so, i will leave you to it and wish you the best. and maybe we will touch base elsewhere. and i will always be appreciative of your friendship when i so so so needed it.
thank you
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)..and it was strongly implied that I turn a blind eye to Islamophobia. Now, unlike me asking you: 'Show me the link where a woman said Femen are clueless and need a man to tell them what to do n/t'*, which isn't an attack, accusations of bigotry fired at someone for daring to disagree on something to do with feminism is an attack.
And it's the insult flung at me in that thread that was being talked about in this sub-thread. I don't have an issue with you, btw. Yr not the person who insulted me
* btw, I was provided with some stuff to read that confirmed that what you said was pretty much close to what the woman from FEMEN was saying...
niyad
(113,303 posts)referred. but, feel free to keep trying.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Some people cannot handle thoughtful dissent at all without going off. What is THAT about?
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Didn't read every argument in that thread. It appears you were abused, personally attacked rather than your argument being scrutinized. Poor behavior.
ismnotwasm
(41,980 posts)"Polite"? Really? He was assassinated as I recall. Gandhi spent many years in prison for his views. Clearly SOMEBODY didn't consider him "polite"
There is a difference between polite and diffidence, just as there is a difference between talking and activism. Both your examples were strong activists and while they espoused non-violence, that's a little different than being "polite"
What is too often demanded of women activists is diffidence, in whatever form it's coached in.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and assassinated? The only difference is, history paints them in a fairer light, because they won, and their ideas widely are accepted.
Look at the suffragette thread- the passage of time and the *very laudable* progress that they made softens the edges quite a bit, doesn't it? Perspective informed by history can be very helpful.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)Women are seen, heard, and treated differently than men in most cases.
niyad
(113,303 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)niyad
(113,303 posts)niyad
(113,303 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)That goes not just for feminism, but every social movement in Western history.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of privileged individuals who have a sad whenever they're confronted.
niyad
(113,303 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)even if people behaved like English butlers, those who oppose rights for women would still be outraged, and find it unacceptable. As I said in the other thread, thank god the feminists who came before us have cleared the path for us to say, "You're outraged that I demand to be treated equally? Tough."
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)zilch.
I have a question....why is it so hard for some people to refer to women as WOMEN....not gals, not ladies, not girls, but WOMEN? It's a perfectly good word.
niyad
(113,303 posts)as an old saying goes, "a girl is a female child. to accept being called "girl" is to accept being treated like a child". I ceased being a child many decades ago.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)it's been a long time since I was a girl and I've never been much of a lady.
niyad
(113,303 posts)satire group
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)OMG... not allowed. adult and old, throw away.
i know.
we as a society cannot say a woman. it must be girl or lady, and ya, that says a hell of a lot. i have brought it up. but then i was accused of being one of "those" feminists. lol
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)it's chick or gal.
I guess I'm one of "those" feminists because it irritates the hell out of me.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)because black women have been oppressed the most throughout U.S. history. Being militant is one form of activism but not the only one that has been successful.
niyad
(113,303 posts)granting women equality as a result. perhaps I am mistaken.
Hekate
(90,683 posts)Four young girls were blown up while at Sunday school in a church known for activism -- which was the KKK's answer to Dr. King's I Have a Dream speech.
Rosa Parks was impressive -- but she was active in the movement both before and after her sit-down, and was only a part of a movement that encompassed a lot of direct confrontation by African Americans; confrontation that got a lot of violence against them in response.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)threats of economic militancy in the form of an organized boycott, and by a determined, vocal civil rights movement. Which was considered by a majority of Americans at the time to be "too militant" and "unnecessarily unpleasant."
Thank God the protesters never listened.
niyad
(113,303 posts)and this one:
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Ulrich is an amazing historian working out of Harvard.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)The people who make that argument do not support women's rights. In fact, most don't like women at all.
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)Asking for permission to be treated equally implies an acceptance of inequality.
What struck me as I read that "people hate environmentalists and feminists" post a couple of days ago, was how effective the right wing propaganda machine has been in poisoning these words. People hate the negative stereotypes associated with the words but don't actually hate the goals, attitudes, and under-pinning ideas behind either movement.
People like clean water and air and increasingly people are willing to adjust their lifestyles to support a healthy environment. And people think women should be paid the same as men when they have equal experience. Few men think women should not participate in public life or think they should be barred from any other activities either.
Yet both men and women report negative feelings about environmentalists and feminists. People are so shallow.
These movements need new packaging, labels, fresh descriptions that entice adherents rather than chase them away.
markpkessinger
(8,396 posts). . . be they women, African Americans or other racial minorities, LGBT folks, etc.?
Hekate
(90,683 posts)Those who already possess power are seldom gracious about yielding it, either.
Riftaxe
(2,693 posts)bombastic arrogant bastard ever advanced anything?
The thread and "study" within it, had little to do with the questions advanced by the "survey".
Let's skip the science of the actually study and pretend the replies actually were related to the subject....
It would seem like it was more a matter of perception then related to environmentalism or feminism.
The old trope that "stereotypes are wrong, but hysterically accurate." comes to mind, but you are discussing a joke of a study that addressed not the issues but their perceptions.
Surely which do you remember more, the loudmouthed assholes dictating their demands or the person who does not advance their cause so forcefully but actually presents a much superior and reasoned case for them?
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)history is kinder to one of these men for the obvious reasons. Well stated by the way. +1
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i believe the man is to be admired and accomplished a great deal and without him the movement would not have been the same.
shame on us that we have such a narrow view for history.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)to be aggressive against your oppressors.
At the same time, I think the women's movement would be wise to be careful not to adopt the corrupted masculine ethos of competition and force that has brought it to be under such scrutiny and universally detested by female and many males alike.
It might help to look at traditionally thought of feminine traits such as politeness and discussion over violence and aggression as not traits imposed on women by their oppressors but as the proper traits that advance group cohesiveness and allow humanity to evolve beyond its primitive tendency toward aggression.
You don't win by adopting the failed and universally despised policy of aggression of your oppressors.
You win by getting humanity to adopt the superior feminine ethos of, well, femininity.
Don't hide your feminine flag because you think it's weak. It's not. Wave it proudly. It advances humanity.
Feminism will have won not when women have become as equally aggressive as men but when men have become as careful and wise at avoiding the unproductive behaviors of competition, violence and aggression as women.
We don't need more women adopting and exercising the masculine ethos. That is what has wreaked havoc to humanity through wars and unbridled ego.
We need more men adopting and exercising the feminine ethos.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)is in order to walk away from our conditioned roles in society that hold a whole gender down?
our feminine ways? masculine ways? being aggressive is a mans world? and being "soft", kind, quiet, gentle is a womans?
if i barf, am i being too masculine?
or am i not allowed to use the word barf?
have i become too masculine merely being flabbergasted by your role assignment of me and calling it out?
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)I would never categorized your gender in that way.
I am only "assigning" behavior to gender for the point of this discussion because one kind has been traditionally associated with one gender and another kind of behavior with the other. Of course, aggression is a human trait and can evolve into a pronounced behavior no matter the gender.
What I'm saying is aggression itself is ultimately a losing option for any person, culture or gender that adopts it. Gandhi, MLK, Bobby Kennedy were precisely successful because they rejected violence. They saw that the path to victory was through renouncing violence and aggressive tendencies, not continuing it.
So if aggression and violence is the problem with male culture, why wouldn't it, if taken to the same extreme as male culture, it be as equally problematic to female culture?
I respectfully submit the problem is not getting women to wear less pink but getting men to wear more.
Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with docility, discussion and cooperation. No matter the person, culture or gender the ultimate goal is to get us to be less aggressive and competitive with each other and more cooperative and rational.
Being able to say "I can get in the boxing ring just like a man" is not a victory. That there are boxing rings at all is the problem.
This interview Naomi Wolf did with Harvey Mansfield is an excellent illustration of my point where she hammered home the point that aggression and competition is all negative no matter what gender adopts it:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/191618-1
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)I think we are on the same page.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)It's just an optional behavior that a male or female can choose. No matter who chooses aggression over cerebral deliberation, male or female, ultimately they will fall under scrutiny, be accused of cruelty and finally fail.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)this is simply a false statement. as much as you need the one that sit kumbyia, you need the one that boldly stands and reaches fist in the sky and stand strong.
you cannot have a one sided accomplishment on a movement. will. not. happen.
maybe in a movement, especially with women so cocooned in a web of femininity, the masses need to vilify the women as masculine, too aggressive and not the "nice" feminist, to save face so they bond with the "good" feminist. but that is not the feminist issue. that is the person that needs the crutch to save face. and if that is what it takes, fine, vilify. but, it fools no one. and that is the point of this OP.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)when it is due aggressive opposition. We agree on that. Part of the evolution of our pre-ancestors involved coalitions of oppressed females and males aggressively standing up to lone bullies and upstarts. That part certainly must continue if we are to evolve to greater cooperation as a species. I just hope we are on the same page in the understanding that being aggressive is about suppressing and getting under control an oppressive faction and aggressive tendency within the group, not merely switching places and replacing one oppressive coalition with another. It's about ultimately evolving away from aggression where it is suppressed enough in ourselves that we don't need it anymore because no one is using it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the need arose as much as men. to defend self or defend child or...
it is a human trait. and no, i do not always see aggressive as a means of control but a simple ability to confront. there have been many times in my life where i needed to confront. it is merely speaking out. standing up to. the simple act of speaking up in a crowd can solve an issue. t hat is a form of aggression. it is not physical assault only.
i am a pacifist and i am aggressive by nature. there you go. oh, and i am also a nurturer that takes care of everyone and i am also a person that must be nice to all. almost always.
but yet still, you define male with a characteristic continually keep us well in our box. that is what is bothersome and what i will not allow.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)Aggression is not inherent or absent in one gender over another, despite my habitual verbiage. I admit I have to replace that. However, (and I say this with sincere respect) you seem to not want to let go of the notion that aggression is, ultimately, anything but bad for humanity. Is this an accurate conclusion?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that beyond all else. even agreement. that being said, yes. you accurately describe. i will tell you, i have had a lifetime of an aggressive personality. it is all of who i am all my life. it has benefited so many. it is a bluntness that brings an honesty and truth in the face, clearly, with no fuzziness involved. and it is hard for others to hear. personally, i welcome it. it makes life so damn easy for me. give me the straight truth so i do not have to waste the time to try and figure out what is really wanted/needed/meant. and i am not afraid to meet the non perfect of who i am. it does not hurt. always from the heart, always with the intent of win win win, always with the best intent. but still, in the aggressiveness of who i am, be ready for blunt, straight and few words.
that is not saying that i will always be right. and when i am wrong, that is fine with me. just more learning, growing, being a better person. that is always good.
but many cannot handle. though many need even though they do not like. because it gives them truth, upside the head.
the reality is that is needed. and often a soft person will come along and hold the wounded. coddle, stroke the ego, and say the same thing, only gently. and viola.... the truth is seen.
they work together. and one without the other is not effective.
it is a story i like. first truth is presented. then a person is nudged with the truth. then the person is tapped with the truth. and finally a brick up side the head to see the truth.
no. i am not afraid of aggressiveness. i see so many advantages to aggressiveness. and i get pissed at those that are so damn fragile they cannot handle aggressiveness. just as those that cannot stand my aggressiveness cause it offends or scares them and they think it is always a fail.
i wish people would buck up and deal. cause it is people like me that do the damn heavy lifting all the fuckin time for others to gain the reward. benefit. all my life i have taken care of others and walked them thru the stuff they refused or were unable to face for them to come out on the other end in peace. they struggle and fight and i put in the time and energy and effort.
i am tired.
the world needs to hear from the aggressive cause it will not be the meek that speak out.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)I had gotten so caught up in this thread earlier I forgot I was supposed to have read my brother's manuscript by the afternoon.
I was interrupted in responding to you when he showed up looking for a finished critique and I hadn't even started reading. This discussion was more interesting to me (I'm not really a thriller fan) but I had made a commitment.
Anyway, I wouldn't call not allowing yourself to be a victim a form of true "aggressiveness", though yourself and others might. There's a moral difference between the defensive aggressiveness of not allowing oneself to be a victim and the overtly offensive kind that creates victims where there were none before and starts trouble with others. Now that you mentioned it, I recall my own frequent realizations for the need to stand firm against "alphas" in my own life who would assume presumptuous authority over myself. There have been abusive people who have had me in vulnerable situations where all I wanted to do was get in a position where I could tell them to fuck off but couldn't do it lest I make my situation worse. So I can fully appreciate the compulsion to finally set some people straight, and aggressively, once and for all. There definitely are situations and individuals that call for a resounding lecture.
I guess it's just a matter of personal preference based on your situation and how much shit others are trying to pull over on you. I'm at a stage where I can get by with just avoidance of the suspect characters. I also think shunning is an effective non-offensive behavior modifier if you can pull it off with a group. It worked for our ancestral hunter-gatherer tribes.
I do think the meek and humble will win in the end, however. When I hear the examples the Buddhist teachers give about how to handle aggressive people who would make us a victim, when you can't just simply avoid the trouble maker, it's always about extending more kindness and patience, not less. I still struggle with that one myself, but there has to be some wisdom to it when deeply introspective and perceptive monks have settled upon it as a coping device.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)confrontation jsut is not too too (enough to stay quiet) scary to me. i am never talking about making victim. i do not hurt others so in discussing aggressive it is not how some may define in bully or abusing in any manner. maybe that is the problem is our definition.
oh, and i procrastinated and had to put a dinner together for company. so i hear you
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)reading yoru post and madras... 92. not gonna retype here but was thinking about you while typing. i cannot go with defining an angel like character of femininity. i wont do it. it sets women up to a hell of a lot of hurt. and really harsh if we step outside the box. and i love aggressiveness. has been a part of who i am for a life time. and has accomplished and given so very much. so i will not vilify that, nor will i allow it to be owned by masculinity.
but thanks for the thinking moment.
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)dinos walking around and in positions of power and authority for intelligent logical decisions to arise, hence, it is always a struggle.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)No rights have ever been won by asking nicely
KG
(28,751 posts)MadrasT
(7,237 posts)And I haven't thought of one.
I keep thinking of what women in this country (and the UK) had to go through to be allowed to VOTE, and that wasn't that long ago.
People in positions of power do not relinquish that power when the people they oppress ask nicely.
The tone argument is nothing more than a (very transparent) convenient excuse to dismiss issue(s) entirely.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and not adopt the more masculine approach?
that one hurt.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)Depends on how you intepret this:
We don't need more women adopting and exercising the masculine ethos. That is what has wreaked havoc to humanity through wars and unbridled ego.
We need more men adopting and exercising the feminine ethos.
I have a lot of, um, "conversations" with people about this, and they get ugly because people are really attached to the idea that "feminine qualities" are something female bodied people are supposed to have.
If you see "the feminine ethos" as something inherent to, or inextricably linked with, the female body type, those comments seems gender stereotyped and offensive.
If you see "the feminine ethos" as a set of human qualities, that in the the past have been stereotypically thought of as "female", but are really just a set of human qualities that humans of ALL GENDERS can display, then I think there is something to that comment that deserves to be thought about.
I am on a campaign to replace the use of the terms "masculine" and "feminine" with "agency" (for masculine) and "communion" (for feminine) because people can't seem to get past "masculine qualities" means "also has penis", etc.
The traits stereotypically thought of as "masculine" and "feminine" are complementary and there is a time and a place for all of them, for people of all genders.
Feminists can get pissy if you tell them to be more "feminine" (and lordy I am certainly one of them)... but is Shank really saying "wimmenz should be more feminine" or is Shank saying "there is a time and place for qualities of communion and a little more of that wouldn't hurt". It seemed like the latter to me.
To anyone who doesn't "know" me... all this is coming from an Aspie female who identifies as nongendered, and simply does not comprehend why the world is so insistent in dividing people into two sides based on their genitals, as if genital configuration means anything beyond "innie" or "outie". (I believe it does not, unless a person chooses to make it mean more, or chooses to adopt the role society thrusts upon them.)
Edited to add -- and seabeyond, you well know that I do not believe feminists should have to be "nice" to be heard. And I am not especially "nice" at times. At the same time, I also do believe that the whole world might be better served if NOBODY had to be aggressive and confrontational to be heard.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and instead use the adjectives all on their own without a defining character.
thank you for interpreting. i was surprised by the post. and yes, i absolutely saw it defining gender in forever old characteristics that society has assigned to us. i am not gonna put a woman on the alter of all these wonderful characteristics while having men firmly on the ground looking up with all their defined characteristics for many reasons.
interesting interesting.
and i absolutely feel that aggressiveness is needed as much as other characteristics. it is no more bad or good than kindness, say. they have there place.
thanks
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Some people you can talk to, other people you have to get their full attention first.
ismnotwasm
(41,980 posts)(Cross-post from HoF)
On 4 June 1913, Emily Wilding Davison travelled to Epsom Downs to watch the Derby, carrying two suffrage flags one rolled tight in her hand, the other wrapped around her body, hidden beneath her coat. She waited at Tattenham Corner as the horses streamed past, then squeezed through the railings and made an apparent grab for the reins of the king's horse, Anmer. In the Manchester Guardian the next day, an eyewitness reported: "The horse fell on the woman and kicked out furiously". News footage shows racegoers surging on to the track to find out what had happened.
Davison suffered a fractured skull and internal bleeding, and as hate mail against her poured in to the hospital, she remained unconscious. She died four days later. Thousands of suffragettes turned out on the London streets dressed in white, bearing laurel wreaths for her funeral. They marched four abreast behind purple banners, urging them all to fight on.
There has always been speculation about Davison's intentions. The return train ticket she was carrying, for instance, offered as evidence that she didn't mean to die. But there's no doubt she was prepared to make dangerous sacrifices for women's rights. As Fran Abrams writes in her book Freedom's Cause, Davison had been imprisoned repeatedly for her suffrage work, had gone on hunger strike and been force fed numerous times.
In 1912, when she and a large number of other suffragettes were imprisoned in Holloway, there was what Davison referred to as a siege the doors of women's cells were broken down by guards and she determined that one big tragedy might save her sisters. Davison threw herself over a balcony, was caught by some netting, then immediately tried again, launching herself down an iron staircase. This led to two cracked vertebrae, and a thwack to the head, but the authorities were unmoved. She and the other women continued to be force-fed, regularly and brutally.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/29/nine-lessons-suffragettes-feminists?CMP=twt_gu
Fuck "Nice"
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i bet that would be very very hard, but bet these women did it.
these are awesome women that went thru things i never knew, at a time when they had everything against them. and i bet they were told to be quiet and allow time to magically change things.
for the women that goes against the social norms we have been conditioned in, they are a very small group. always has been, always will be. they are not well liked cause they are beating at a comfortable conditioned world where roles are well defined. and still, with every accomplishment so many people benefit with very little to no... thnak yous.
we are the minority, even on a progressive board. we will always be. we will always be dislike by some, maybe even many
no one said, saying what needs to be said is easy. we do it, because it is that important for what we say to be heard.
many will keep there heads buried to not hear, many will throw tantrums and insults when we speak. and there will always be the few that a light bulb goes off for. and those few are worth all the ugly. cause those few will spread it to others....
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Solly Mack
(90,766 posts)WatermelonRat
(340 posts)between assertiveness and belligerence. Standing up does not need to entail vulgarity and abrasiveness.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)like, simply challenging you, is that too abrasive for you? have i stepped over the line yet?
niyad
(113,303 posts)the fascinating thing is, I have been a feminist for many decades, and have yet to see the behaviour that is so decried and derided here. what I HAVE seen is a lot of ugliness and threats and brutality from those who do not want to hear. the death threats I have gotten did not come from feminists. the attempt to kill me at a roe v wade rally did not come from feminists. the suffragists who were beaten, imprisoned and force-fed (here and in great britain) were note beaten, jailed and imprisoned by feminists. the ugly characterizations and hateful vitriol and violence come from those who feel threatened by what we demand.
and, as sea said, exactly where is that line between assertiveness and belligerence. more to the point, why should I care?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)feminist. and i asked him. one name. give men one name. one feminist you re hearing int he real world that has so turned you, your wife and you feminist daughter off feminism. who is this mystery femininst that is doing the whole friggin cause so much damage that people near and far are outraged by her voice. cause i am hearing NO feminists in the real world. not a one. so i want a name, of the abrasive woman, or women that is causing us all this damage.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)GreenEyedLefty
(2,073 posts)She is a woman who was incredibly myopic about what it meant to be a good boss, and at times, a woman.
I work in public education... where the majority of employees are women. The superintendent of the district where I work is your basic "man's man." Big guy, booming voice, not shy about spitting, picking scratching. Etc.
It was fascinating to watch my boss interact with this guy. Around me, she was hard charging, focused, energetic, etc.
When supe came into the room, she underwent a personality transplant, suddenly morphing into a giggling coquette. Even the tone of her voice went up an octave. I quietly observed their interactions... and made certain to never alter my personality in the presence of that man.
She might be one of the most profoundly insecure people I had ever met.
I learned SO much from her... She has no idea.
Not sure where this post is going... but I had to throw this out there.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and are more comfortable living those roles. i have found in observation, me setting lines for myself also.
interesting story. thanks
niyad
(113,303 posts)by those who insist that it is our tone that keeps them from responding to us.
mathematic
(1,439 posts)Everyday people "demand nicely" every day about all sorts of things, including rights.
GreenEyedLefty
(2,073 posts)I counsel people, other women mostly, to "tell" people what they want.
If you want or need time off, tell your boss. Never ask for time off.
If you want a raise, tell your boss. Never ask for a raise. The worst they can do is say no... but there is no harm whatsoever in verbalizing your wants and needs.
People often times will say, what if I get fired? What if I am punished for telling higher-ups what I want? Well, then perhaps that company or organization is not worthy of your talents.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)GreenEyedLefty
(2,073 posts)Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)to 'listen' to your message. That only applies if your tits are young and perky, however. And the minute you put your shirt back on, I'm afraid that your message goes...*poof*!
Squinch
(50,949 posts)shut up with the telling you to shut up. But really they are just being quiet because their brain has gone into a loop where it keeps saying, "Look! Boobs!" They aren't actually hearing or noticing anything else. You can tell by the glazed expression.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and rejoice and cheer this weak. odd that, huh.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)I rely on my intelligence, I am assertive and aggressive when the situation calls for it (and I get to decide when/ if the situation calls for it), I work hard, I stand up and speak out when confronted with a situation or idea that runs counter to my sense of morale right, I take control of and responsibility for my sexuality, I am a fully engaged and dedicated parent, I am warm and kind, I am loving, I am a tough and relentless fighter ... I exhibit the strengths and frailties of humanity ... I am a human being and I am a woman ... and I act like it!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)about that study that contrasted people's impressions of activists with their actual desire for change? Or was that a different thread?
Your OP makes me think of that study, though. Activists change things. Anyone who WANTS positive change should embrace the activists who get out and spend their time and energies and resources to create that change, instead of sitting home in their armchairs criticizing.
Once, about 15 years ago or so, I was having a conversation with my then-boss, the principal of my school. He was patiently listening to me, again, tell him why the new policies set by our district in response to AYP and API and the standards and accountability "reform" movement were bad for schools, bad for students, and getting in our way. I told him, "I know what the law says. I don't care. I'm an idealist, and I want to focus on what's BEST for our school and our students, not on what some politician thinks." He told me this: "You BE that idealist, and you keep on fighting. I have to be the pragmatist and find a way to make this work at our school with the least damage possible. We NEED idealists. Where would the world be; what progress would have been made, without you? Idealists are the catalyst for change. Don't ever apologize."
Not that "idealist" and "activist" are synonymous; they're not. But the point applies.
As for your more specific point: Acting like "ladies" is just one more way in all the myriad ways that our male-dominated society has used to control women and keep them stifled. People who supposedly support equality ought to be celebrating strong, vocal, active women.
niyad
(113,303 posts)thread. reminds me of the old saying, "with friends like you, who needs enemies". very sad to see on what is supposedly a progressive board. shows how far we really have not come. love your last sentence.
Iggo
(47,552 posts)It's the overall most effective tone argument in the history of civilization.
And it only works if you play along. So don't.
historylovr
(1,557 posts)alarimer
(16,245 posts)Perhaps the sample was drawn from a non-representative population.
In any case, I do think people don't like being told things they don't want to hear: i.e, that they ARE the problem.
Why do you think even liberals give pushback whenever the topic of male privilege comes up? No one wants to hear that they benefit by their gender and skin color and not solely because they earned it. That is an uncomfortable truth. It is uncomfortable to me to know that I have personally benefited largely because my family was upper middle-class. And white. And suburban. Without those things, I might not be where I am today.
And people like shiny new tech toys. They do not want to hear that they are ruining the planet with their acquisitiveness. Although I believe it's the corporations like Apple that sell us the idea that we need a new Iphone every year. Meanwhile all the OLD Iphones are mostly thrown away. Incredibly wasteful, but nobody wants to hear it.
I think cognitive dissonance plays a huge role in why people say they "hate" feminists and environmentalists.
And, interestingly enough, you hear the same arguments about atheists. They are too "strident", too mean to believers. On and on and on.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)- Laura Thatcher Ulrich
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/books/review/harrison.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/11/03/well-behaved-women/
I seriously doubt the "everyone hates environmentalists and feminists" thing was an accurate view of reality.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)See my sig for further details.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)barefoot and pregnant...in veils...unable to work, drive, or vote. It got us genital mutilation...bound feet...corsets...and plastic surgery. Short skirts...low wages...catcalls...and glass ceilings.
niyad
(113,303 posts)Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)I do that too sometimes. No one will give you an answer to this. The only replies pretending to answer you will be excuses why women should be demure and beg for rights, blah blah blah.
K&R for trying to point out the truth though.