Women are Human.

[Katherine Brengle]

That is all - just a quick public service announcement.

[musette_sf]

1. and quite fully so

:thumbsup:

[RB TexLa]

2. And hopefully one day gender will be meaningless

[wtmusic]

4. Meaningless?

Never. Viva le difference.

[RB TexLa]

5. You want people treated or thought of differently because of their gender?

ok

[wtmusic]

7. I love women

I think of them differently than men. I can't help it. I'm as heterosexual as the day is long.

So sue me.

[supernova]

11. Dating and sex

are one thing.

How we are percieved by the law is entirely different.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

23. That's exactly right

Men and women are different and will always be different. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't treat both women and equally under law and in our culture, with equal respect, dignity, and human rights.

[wtmusic]

27. In a hiring situation, if anything

I might be guilty of disciminating in favor of a woman over a man.

In my experience they have been better workers and more honest than the men I have dealt with. So I know that shouldn't be part of the decision but I don't know if I can help that either.

[ThomCat]

12. It would be nice if we could sue.

(not necessarily you. I don't know you.) But treating women differntly from men is de-facto legal in most cases.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

79. So you'd sue a man if they decided not to punch you in the face because you are a woman?

Because that's one way women get treated differently than men.

I mean, really....folks......

Can I sue lesbians because they won't have sex with me too?

[ThomCat]

82. "Because that's one way women get treated differently than men."

You're kidding, right?

Tell me you don't really believe that.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

87. Oh, gee......I knew I should have qualified that but........

Men who are raised properly and not insane assholes would never strike a woman.........

[ThomCat]

89. Sexism is far more than just not striking a woman.

Sexism is stereotypes that categorize women based only on their gender.
Sexism is all the influences that lead to women getting stuck in lesser prestige jobs that pay less.
Sexism is all the influences that lead to women earning 2/3 of what a man makes even when they have the same job.
Sexism is all the influences that lead to women getting fewer promotions even when they are more qualified.
Sexism is all the influences that lead men to objectify women as sex objects.
Sexism is all the influences that prevent most men (and some women) from seeing sexism, thinking instead that it's normal, or natural, or somehow justified.
Sexism is all the influences that make men think it's okay to date-rape women, and not think of it as rape.

And this list could be continued...

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

94. You kind of missed my point.......

But nevermind anyway......I know semi-snark isn't always appreciated here.

[Lorien]

167. There is a poorly titled movie called "Dangerous Beauty"

which is based on the true story of a 16th century Venetian courtesan. During one scene the courtesan's best friend from childhood-now a politician's wife- asks her friend to take her daughter and teach her to become a courtesan when she comes of age. Courtesan's are allowed to be educated and act as advisers to powerful men, while all other women of the age-wives, servants, or nuns-were not allowed to learn to read and had very few rights or freedoms.The courtesan refuses, saying "I will NOT pimp your daughter"! The wife replies "but the life you lead...I don't care if they say it's a sin, because there can be no biblical hell that can ever match a life of perpetual insignificance." That's what the sexist among us want; for our lives to be perpetually insignificant because for some sick reason they believe that by keeping us down they elevate themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth. A society is strongest when all members are free and allowed equal rights. Only then can everyone achieve their full potential.

[poverlay]

14. That's not what he said. Why would you attempt to read negativity into such a nice

post?

[Madspirit]

45. Stop Neutering Everyone!

If you think gender differences are only skin deep you need to take some biology courses. You don't have to neuter everyone to be a feminist and/or pro-women's rights.
Lee

[Warren DeMontague]

129. I know. It was expensive enough when I did it to my cat. nt

[treestar]

39. Any two individuals are "different"

A woman can have more in common with some men than with some women.

Women have all the characteristics men can have, in any variation.

[aquart]

41. That's just nutty.

[JitterbugPerfume]

3. yes we are!

we are so damn human that we are capable of making other humans inside our bodies!

[undeterred]

6. And its against the law to discriminate against us, or so I've heard.

I've had it happen to me, but I've heard its illegal.

[ThomCat]

9. Laws, unfortunately, are mostly symbolic.

They're usually only enforced against certain people. In theory they might apply to everyone equally, but that's just a convenient fiction to keep people from getting upset.

Laws against discrimination are almost never enforced. And when they are, huge numbers of people insist that it's the victim who should be punished for daring to cause trouble "over nothing."

Women are people, but far too many people separate other people into tiers. Women usually end up on the lower tiers. Especially if they're not white, or if they're not straight, or if they have a disability.

[undeterred]

29. Just this once

someone did it quite blatantly to me, at a short term job about two months ago. I discussed it with the EEOC and they said it was a very good case. I'm filing the paperwork monday. Won't be worth much financially, but it will teach a 30 year old new supervisor a lesson he needs to learn NOW.

[ThomCat]

30. I hope it's a lesson that follows him for a long time.

x(

I hope you're in a better employment situation now.

[undeterred]

38. I've been out of work for 5 months

with no unemployment compensation.

I just got a job offer which starts Tuesday.

The discrimination was at a 3 week assignment in June which I desperately needed. They brought in 5 people. 3 men, 2 women. 1st day the white male supervisor made the women do 11 hours of physical labor unboxing computers and hauling garbage away. The men did not lift a finger to help (they got trained on the intellectual work); the supervisor laughed at the 2 of us struggling. The other woman quit and the next morning they sent in a male replacement. I introduced him to the supervisor. He said, well, now that I have him I don't need you- you can go. = I'd rather have a young male than a middle aged female.
The physical labor was already done.

Its seldom that blatant. He got in big trouble with his supervisor. But more trouble is coming. Hopefully I'll get paid for the whole assignment I was hired to do.

[ThomCat]

40. I hope you not only get paid for the full 3 weeks,

but also get a nice settlement out of it.

It's totally fucked up that you could have to experience that. But I can picture several of my coworkers laughing and agreeing with him.
:(

[undeterred]

54. The feedback I got was

"she had a bad attitude"

The other thing is- my whole body ached the next day- the day I was fired. A week later I realized I had pain and tingling which still persists. I can't prove it started that day, but basically, it did. I have a pinched nerve in my spine from moving 250 computers and monitors for eleven hours.

Women go into the computer field knowing we will have to lift stuff and crawl around from time to time. But the reality is- we do not have the same upper body strength men do. If I am carrying X amount of garbage to the stairwell, I am going to have to take 4 or 5 times as many trips as a man. Other tasks- like unpacking and stacking things, should be pretty much equal. So if he wanted it to go fast he could have mixed it up appropriately. But I think his intent here was crystal clear. He wanted a group of young guys, but he couldn't come right out and say that.

Guess what, fella. You have to take who you get. Its the law.

Most of the guys in the field would wait to be asked or offer if they saw that a female co-worker had to move something really heavy.

[OzarkDem]

15. Not under the Bush administration

IIRC those in charge of enforcement are not paying attention. Its not a priority.

Give them a little more time and discrimination will become legal again.

[CountAllVotes]

37. you got it

next will be to revoke the right of women to vote. This was not law until 1920.

>> 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Women's Right to Vote (1920) - Transcript


Sixty-sixth Congress of the United States of America; At the First Session,

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the nineteenth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen.

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution extending the right of suffrage to women.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislature of three-fourths of the several States.

"ARTICLE ————.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

#######

[supernova]

8. I believe it

I just wish the rest of the planet did.

:-(

[ThomCat]

10. It would be a wonderful start if the rest of DU believed it.

But a whole lot of people only pay lip-service to that idea that women are human.

[Mandate My Ass]

16. damn, ya beat me to it

scary thought that two people came to the same sad conclusion. :-(

[ThomCat]

18. There are more than just two of us

who have come to this conclusion. :(

[supernova]

19. One of the ways

sadly, we on DU are not "cutting edge."

This morning's thread on this subject just goes to show we're solidly in the mainstream.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. Yes. So Many Of Us Here Think They Are Plants, Or Fish, Or Turtles.

And you wonder why I think some of your declarations are examples of extremism.

I can't think of one time I've seen any DU'er offer a premise that women weren't human or equal, and if one had I'm sure they were a quickly nabbed freeper who was dealt with appropriately. But with blatantly false on their face accusations of our community like you've set forth above, I'm sure it's not a surprise as to why so many don't take you seriously.

[Madspirit]

46. "so many don't take you seriously"

Speak for your fucking self and stop globalizing. If YOU don't know who isn't taken seriously around here you are blind. EVERY woman and gay I know on here loves reading her. So maybe you just made that crap up.

Lee

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

48. You Need To Pay Attention.

I wasn't talking to a her.

[Madspirit]

52. Retracted Apology... n/t

[Madspirit]

55. Now to Retract My Apology

Actually, I respect and listen to ThomCat as much as I do Katherine and you were globalizing. ...and he's right. Sexism is rampant here or all us wacky people, particularly women people and gay people, wouldn't think it is. Notice that?
Lee

[ThomCat]

.

:hug:

:hi:

[Madspirit]

62. back at you

:hug:

:hi:


Lee

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

59. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

96. You're Projecting ThomCat. Talk About Unsupported Opinion? How Bout Puttin Your Money Where Your

mouth is pal.

You're the one putting forth the absolutely ridiculous premise that a 'whole lot of DU'ers' don't think of women as being human, so I'd say the onus is on you to offer some credibility to such an attack on our community. You call me delusional, yet it is your premise that appears to be the one that has no bearing in reality.

So instead of your typical nonsense personal attacks and trigger happy assaulting of people as homophobes, sexists, and blah blah blah, how bout actually defending your own argument. That would be refreshing to see in fact.

See, I can't prove a negative. I can't prove that 'a whole lot of DU'ers' don't in fact think of women as not human, but based on simple common sense and being an active member of this community, I can say with as much integrity and sincerity as I can muster that I've NEVER seen a member of this community assert nor imply that women are less than human. I raise the challenge that your point was unnecessarily exaggerated and made up and as usual crossing the line of extremity. So if you believe my assertion towards your premise to be false, then you should be able to defend your argument and give some examples of times posters have been guilty of implying women are less than human.

If you're going to issue such strong attack on a 'whole lot' of members within our community, then I'd think you'd have more than enough examples off the top of your head in which you could reference. I'm not telling you to call anyone out either. Simple quotes would suffice. But instead of your typical attack style of attacking the poster instead of actually discussing the point, I'd much rather see you actually defend your premise of which I found to be false and extreme. Will you give that a try? I think it would serve you far better to actually offer validity to your points rather than childish attack in deflection.

Let's see what ya got.

[ThomCat]

98. You clearly don't believe

that sexism is the dehumanizing of women.

Given that starting point, you're hopeless.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

100. Stop Deflecting With Attack ThomCat. You Can Either Defend Your Point Or You Can't.

I full out declare that your point is exaggerated and extreme and an unnecessary attack on our community. I am asserting that you cannot defend it because it was simply untrue. I'm openly challenging you to defend your point with substance and fact and show how a 'whole lot of DU'ers' have implied that women are not human.

I'm convinced you can't do so, because I know this community well and know that I've never seen any true member here imply such garbage. So I think it's quite offensive and inexcusable for you to throw such a strong attack out to so many in our community.

So will you defend your point with truth, fact, verifiability or any substance at all? Will you retract your attack on 'a whole lot of DU'ers' and offer apology? Or will you continue to attack needlessly in hopes of deflecting away from the fact you issued a premise rooted in extremism and falseness, of which you've now been called out on and cannot defend?

I guess we'll have to see which route you take. If you can offer legitimacy to the declaration then do so. If you can't, then retract it. That's the honorable road to take here.

[ThomCat]

104. I'm not deflecting at all.

Sexism dehumanizes women. It takes away their individuality (their humanity) and gives them a group identity and group characteristics based solely on their gender. Even you, as arrogant and argumentative as you are, should be able to accept that.

Sexism is, on the face of it, denying women their humanity. If you don't consider that a legitimate argument then we're going in circles. Which is nothing less than what I would expect from you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

115. You Are Deflecting, And You're Failing To Legitimize Your Point.

You said a whole lot of DU'ers imply women are not human. You didn't say of less worth then men, which is what sexism in that manner would be. No. You said they imply they're sub human. You have failed to provide anything that backs up that ridiculously exaggerated and extremist notion. In fact, you are now moving the goal posts to a claim of sexism instead, hoping your deflection counts as defense.

Well if you wanted to talk about sexism, then you should've declared that a whole lot of DU'ers show sexist attitudes. Then we'd be talking about something completely different. But saying many here imply they are simply not human, as in treating them like animals, is just blatant extremist bullshit of which I guarantee you simply CANNOT defend.

So I'll give you an out here. If you want to rescind your comment and admit to its inaccuracy, and that it was said in error and that what you really meant was to say a whole lot of DU'ers are sexist, then I'll consider it no harm done.

But if you do that, be prepared for my challenge to you to prove that assertion as well. Cause though I've seen some from the opposite side of the fence engage in blatantly sexist behavior towards men in general, I have rarely seen DU'ers, let alone a 'whole lot of DU'ers', engage in what would REALLY (since you and those like you call EVERYTHING sexist for cryin out loud) be termed sexist. I can think of two posters, who I'd say I've considered to post things that I found to be realistically sexist towards women in general. But that's a hell of big difference then a 'whole lot of DU'ers'.

So if you are to rescind your previous unverified and exaggerated attack and instead offer this one, then I'm going to require you to have the ability to defend it as well. Cause just calling a whole lot of DU'ers sexist doesn't make it true. Furthermore, calling a whole lot of DU'ers sexist is also a pretty loaded declaration. If you're to offer such a loaded attack on members of this community, then I hope you're prepared to substantiate the argument.

[ThomCat]

117. First you claim that you're the only one who is right because

only you are "objective" and now you claim the right to determine what is a "legitimate" argument. You're a real piece of work.

Sexist Attitude = dehumanizing. If you can't understand that argument then the deficiency is on your end.

Thank you so much for your condescening offer to rescind my posts. I'll pass. I think they stand on their own. :eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

121. Now You're Not Only Deflecting With Personal Attack, But You're Making Even More Stuff Up.

You have failed completely to defend or legitimize your other positions, so I have a feeling you will fail to defend or legitimize the following as well. Mind providing evidence of your unwarranted personal attack that I've EVER said I'm the only one who is objective? Bet ya you can't.

And it's pretty much common sense as to what is and isn't a legitimate argument. I'm fairly certain that just issuing broad based strongly loaded attacks without any evidence supporting them would not constitute anything legitimate. If you want to legitimize it, then you need to offer substance to it. You simply haven't.

And you keep wanting to offer this empty declarations with no substance behind them. Like I said to you before, if you are going to change your argument now to one of sexism, then your premise now becomes that 'a whole lot of DU'ers' are sexists. I'd say that's still an exaggerated, extremist and quite simply wrong declaration. You have failed to offer any substance to that argument either. So will you? Can you? Will you continue to deflect and attack? Who knows. I guess we'll see.

But if you are to claim that a whole lot of DU'ers, presumably men, are sexists, then you best be able to back up such a charge. Put up or shut up, so to speak.

[mudesi]

143. I can think of one sexist DUer, OPERATIONMINDCRIME

What is it about any thread that involves women that you feel the need to reply in a contrarian, argumentative, sarcastic, or otherwise generally obnoxious way?

I didn't have to look very far to find an example.

I think you need help, and I know you know I have stated this to you on more than one occasion.

The substance of this thread is a single, three word sentence: Women are human. A supposedly obvious fact, but one that is all too often overlooked consciously and subconsciously by many, many men. That was the purpose of the thread when taken in context, which is to point out, in a very succinct way, that sexism still exists in the world and in America.

But you replied by rolling your eyes to the very simple premise of the thread, pretending to take it literally (as if the OP was about educating the masses on the fact that female homo sapiens are indeed homo sapien) and then you ask whether or not there exist DUers who may have sexist tendencies. I suggest you take a look in the mirror.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

144. Yeah, Who?

Cause if you're implying I'm a sexist then your premise is rooted in utter ignorance and stupidity. I defend against sexism and bigotry in all of its forms. Challenging the opinions of extremists is not sexism pal. You will not find ONE POST OF MINE that is genuinely sexist. Not a one.

So you're another one who likes to attack unnecessarily and falsely but who cannot defend their own point. But I'm calling you out on it as well.

You want to attack bub? Then provide evidence for your assertion. Cause many of us here get called sexist and I've noticed a trend: Each time it's from some ignoramus who are so blinded in their narrow mindedness that they can't recognize how silly they're being in their attacks.

So put your money where you mouth is too pal. Go provide evidence that I'm a sexist ok? I know you can't, but it'll be hilarious to see you try.

Ready, set, GO!

[mudesi]

156. I just did

A woman started a thread that amounted to the following statement: "Sexism exists".

You responded with a post that amounted to: "Yeah. So what?"

I haven't read every other direct response, but the others I have read amount to "k & r" and "I agree". Why was it so hard for you to do the same, or at the very least, not reply at all?

On edit: After perusing the many replies to this thread, I'll admit that there are indeed many others whose inherent sexism is still unapparent to them. I guess there are "many" sexist DUers.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

163. No You Didn't. You Want To Believe You Did, Though What You Did Was Post Nonsense.

You can't alter reality. If the statement in the OP was sexism exists, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The OP was yet another attempt to shove false premise down DU'ers throats as if we were ignorant of such things.

Do you honestly think DU'ers aren't aware that sexism exists in the world? Do you honestly believe it was warranted to post a preachy premise of "Women are humans" as if DU needed to be schooled on such a concept?

It was just one more exercise in trying to label members of this community as something they're not. I responded the way I did out due to the whole 'public service announcement' thing, as if DU really needed some poster to declare women are human, as if as a community we don't all already readily agree to such a basic concept. I posted my snark as reference to that idea.

We all know women are human. Find me anyone here who is guilty of implying otherwise. The premise behind the premise was bullshit from the start: That enough DU'ers don't respect women as human that a thread needed to be started to educate them somehow or preach to them about why that's wrong. Well excuse me for rolling my eyes at such misguided intent. DU'ers don't need a preaching of women being human any more they do of dogs being canines and cats being felines. That was my point. And guess what pal, that ain't sexist to say.

The problem with you and the others is that at a drop of a damn pin you'll have no problem attacking from a totally ignorant and narrow minded perception to others that they are sexists blah blah blah. But it's just patently absurd.

Even now, you have the ignorant call to accuse me of sexism in this thread, when I have offered none. In fact, I have never offered a sexist ideal in any of these threads.

The only reason such accusations occur is because you and others like you twist words and reality to suit extremist or attacking agenda, without having to actually use honor and integrity in doing so. Case in point, is your redefining the OP to be "sexism exists" and my reply to be "yeah, so what". What deceitful and disgraceful bullshit that is. But that's how you guys work. You twist words and concepts in deceitful manners so that you can use strawman arguments to deride and attack your opponents, by labeling them horrible things like sexists and bigots. But it's so transparent to everyone else how ridiculous such notions are.

No, I'm not sexist. No, you can't possibly show evidence as to where I have been; without actually having to twist words, make things up, and contort reality to suit your agenda. But when dealing with absolute fact from a standpoint of integrity, you simply can't do it can you? I'd like to see you try. Since you monumentally failed above to offer anything showing me to be a sexist, I invite you to try again, but this time without having to twist words or premises and instead using actual statements and explanations that are, like, ya know, REAL.

Thanks pal. Get goin now. Put up or shut up.

[michael_1166]

182. You're very brave, and you're very patient...

wading through and replying to all this nonsense some people hurl at you who obviously have their thinking capabilities deliberately switched to "off". I'm with you on this topic 100%.

It is an astonishing view how DU'ers are willing to turn into Pavlov's dogs the moment the holy cow of "feminism" gets criticized even just a bit.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

183. Thanks. I Appreciate That.

[LostInAnomie]

193. That is one of the most soild verbal smack downs I have ever seen.

I just want to say thanks for all your patience in taking apart all the ridiculousness in this thread. :thumbsup:

[U4ikLefty]

125. I have coined his type of reasoning as "WalMart Logic". n/t

[otherlander]

51. What are you referring to?

[Mandate My Ass]

13. I wish the rest of DU did

it pains me no end that it isn't so.

[DemGa]

17. I knew that!

:hi:

[leftofthedial]

20. are you sure about this?

do you have a link?

[Jed Dilligan]

21. As are convicted criminals,

but you wouldn't know it from reading the blood-n-guts threads on this board.

Not comparing women to criminals, just pointing out another group of people that it's somehow okay to rape and brutalize in our society.

[Mandate My Ass]

24. Definitely another *subset* of humanity

that a chunk of DU believes deserve all the hatred, violence and dehumanization that can be heaped upon them.

[Toasterlad]

22. Pfft. I Already Knew That.

[Cerridwen]

25. Right up until the point, we

raise our voices in anger.

And I dare not say more; which I believe speaks volumes.

edit: oh yeah, k & r and thank you, Katherine

[ThomCat]

26. I forgot to recommend this thread. Off to the greatest page with you.

[Az]

28. Thats just more left wing crazy talk

:hide: :sarcasm:

[eShirl]

31. water is wet.

[Skidmore]

32. As are people of color, GLBT folks, children, the elderly, those with disabilities,

members of nationalities and ethnic groups....

...the white patriarchs just don't ever learn that.

[ThomCat]

33. A lot of people who support the status quo don't think they

have any incentive to learn that.

[Katherine Brengle]

147. Hell yes.

One day maybe...

[SmokingJacket]

34. Yeah, but some people are more human than others.

I mean, apparently.

[EFerrari]

35. Not AGAIN!

lol

[Colobo]

36. Men and women are human. That we all should remember.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. Dogs Are Canines.

Cats are felines.

Lizards are reptiles.

Cool. I feel better now. I've provided my public service announcements. Thank God I won't have to see any more "Dogs are amphibians!!!!" threads now. Phew!

[Madspirit]

44. k&r...n/t

[ismnotwasm]

47. Already the "yeahbuts" start

Nearly record time. Anyway, thank you KB!:yourock:

[Katherine Brengle]

148. I was honestly sure that people would see this one, think it was a joke, and move on --

it's fucked up that it's even conversation worthy.

But since more in-depth discussions always get out of hand, I thought we could start with the basics.

[stevedeshazer]

49. Yes, they are

Sincerely,

Another Human

[Nikki Stone1]

50. Feminism: The radical notion that women are people.

......

[DemSoccerMom]

90. Gloria said that, right? I LOVE that quote. n/t

[Alexander]

56. Newsflash: All people are human.

So that includes men as well, and people who change their gender.

That is all.

[JVS]

136. What about Furries?

;-)

[Alexander]

141. Furries?

[porphyrian]

57. I didn't realize anyone here thought any differently. - n/t

[ThomCat]

60. Nobody will claim to think any differently

but in practice a lot of people treat women as if they aren't fully human, and then rationalize it. Up to, and including the point of dismissing women's perspectives when they complain about sexism. They're just women, after all, so it's not like their perspectives matter.
x(

[porphyrian]

65. I'm fully aware that sexism exists, just like classism and racism...

...but less than 1% of us here at DU would claim women are not human, if any, and it's dishonest to present it otherwise.

[ThomCat]

67. Far more people than that

dismiss almost every posted example of sexism, minimize the seriousness of sexism, and dismiss/criticise all feminist activism aimed at fighting sexism.

Women get bashed on rape threads repeatedly, the seriousness of rape and sexual assault gets minimized, and it's constantly implied that women are out to entrap/punish innocent men.

I have no idea where you got that 1% figure. I'm guessing you simply made it up. But you're way off.

[porphyrian]

68. Way off my ass. You're the one who's way off.

There are not 1000 or more DUers who believe women are less than human. Sorry, bullshit.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

75. I'd be curious to know what is your definition of a sexist is

I mean, besides anyone who disagrees with you.

[ThomCat]

76. Funny.

Many people who disagree with me are femnists too. We're not monolithic.

As for what a sexist is,

Anyone who accepts, supports, or encourages the differential treatment of women as secondary to men.

Anyone who denies the seriousness of violence against women, tends to attack or blame the women, or interferes with efforts to help women.

Anyone who accepts, uses and encourages language that demeans women as a group.

Anyone who's tends to support sexists and fights feminism.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

81. Question

Are you against anyone who accepts, uses and encourages language that demeans men as a group?

Just curious, please don't start with the "men always have to be victims" stuff.....I'm talking as a human being now.....

[ThomCat]

84. No.

Language that demeans women encourages rape, sexual assault and violence against women. Language that demeans women encourages discrimination.

If language that demeans men has any kind of serious effect then I oppose that too. But reality says that people in the dominant position get judged as individuals, people with less power get judged as a group.

Calling one woman a bitch encourages the idea that women are bitches. Calling one man a dick only reflects on that one man.

If language had no effect then I wouldn't care what anyone said, but because it does have an effect, I care about it because of the effect.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

91. Hmm....interesting

I think your wrong about the bitch/dick (actually guys get called assholes more, women usually don't) thing encouraging people to call all women bitches.......but whatever. I also hear women brag they are bitches, so I'm not sure your premise is solid.

[ThomCat]

95. You will hear every disadvantaged group

try to claim the language that's used against them.

I use the term Cripple. I use the term Queer. I'm a disabled gay man. That doesn't negate the impact of language. In fact, it's a sign of the impact that language has when it's used by the dominant people outside your group.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

124. Are You Serious?

"Calling one woman a bitch encourages the idea that women are bitches. Calling one man a dick only reflects on that one man."

That's one of the most warped logical premises I've ever heard. Holy cow. No wonder why we don't see eye to eye, if that's the perception you have of things.

[ThomCat]

126. That's a pretty standard and accepted idea

in civil rights literature. It doesn't surprise me that you don't read.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

134. Standard And Accepted Idea? What A Crock Of Shit.

The logic is pathetic.

Sorry pal, but if I have an argument with a woman and call her a bitch, I'm calling her a bitch based on her actions and her actions alone. If she turns around and say "yeah well you're a fucking prick" then she too is doing so based on my actions and my actions alone. The declaration you made is purely nonsensical, and I don't give a rat's ass how many authors with skewed perceptions of reality wrote such things which would be of current standing.

[ThomCat]

137. Yes, because you are far more of an authority

than any academics or published authors. I forgot. :eyes:

Have fun with that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

139. Nope. I Just Simply Can Recognize Premises Based On Sheer Stupidity.

And that quote which I placed above is nothing short of purely nonsensical.

[Cerridwen]

158. It's called the dynamics of power in relationships which exist

within a hierarchy of power; for short, it's frequently called the politics of power.

The way in which individuals and groups of individuals react within defined hierarchies of power determines the "norm" by which those within any given hierarchy are judged and valued. What is acceptable and tolerated within one relationship of social equals (as one example) would be taboo or unacceptable within a relationship of social unequals; e.g. employee and employee versus boss and employee.

One notable example recognizing the politics of power and its relationship to humor (as an example) is this great quote by Molly Ivins:

One kind that makes us chuckle about our foibles and our shared humanity -- like what Garrison Keillor does. The other kind holds people up to public contempt and ridicule -- that's what I do. Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful. I only aim at the powerful. When satire is aimed at the powerless, it is not only cruel -- it's vulgar.

edit: added emphasis in quote

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

164. It's Called Sheer Stupidity. Nothing More.

That whole "when you call a woman a bitch, you're degrading ALL women, but when you call a man a prick you are insulting only that man" is one of the biggest exercises in warped ignorant logic I've ever come across. What makes it even more hilarious, is that the overwhelming majority of the time it is women who reference other women as bitches, not men. But don't let reality hurt you or anything, ok?

I'm in awe as to how flawed some logical perceptions are here. My god.

[Name removed]

180. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Greyhound]

198. LOL!

Ah yes the old "I am rubber you are glue" argument.:rofl:

Cunningly paired with, "I know you are, but what am I?"

I have to admire your ability to, not only read, but respond to this dreck. Hats off to you.

[Clark2008]

172. Actually, Thom's right about that.

And, if someone dares to call all men dicks on this board, then they get all kinds of grief from men.

When a woman is making a point about men in our society, she is NOT saying all men do this or act like that. It's poetic license to say "men" when one simply means "many men" or "some men" or even "most men." But, when she does it on this board, many male DUers get all bent out of shape.

But, in the adverse, few men here say squat when women, as a group, are held to monolithic ideals. ThomCat is a anomaly.

For example, I am a woman, a Southerner and in my 30s. Judging by the demographic, I should be a HUGE John Edwards fan. But, the truth is that I don't trust him at all and wouldn't vote for him. Or, since I'm not an Edwards fan, I should be an HRC fan because I'm a youngish woman. But, I'm not a fan of hers, either.

I don't fit into all female categories just because I'm female.

Just like all men aren't dicks - but no one is really ever implying that they are. However, I see threads by men that simply imply that all women think or do or say things as a group because of a, "you've talked to one woman, you've talked to them all" type of attitude that prevails on this board.

I hope that makes sense to you. You're male. You may not notice it like a female would. But, now that females have told you this, perhaps you'll broaden your perspective and see what we're saying... provided you're actually listening to us and not dismissing our opinions because, after all, we're "just" women.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

173. No, He Actually Isn't.

And no, if I said to a woman "stop acting like a bitch", I'm not degrading women as a whole. I'd be attacking her and her alone. Same as if she said "stop acting like a prick" she's not degrading men as a whole, but just attacking me.

It's quite simple really, and I don't care what kind of sexist in concept "you're a man, so you may not get it" type crap you throw out either. The concept is ridiculous.

Now if YOU or HE or ANYONE ELSE feels like an individual being called a bitch is representative of the ENTIRE gender, then that would be of your own doing and preference to view it in such ways which you actually are entitled to do if ya want. But it DOES NOT make the person saying it sexist nor someone putting down an entire gender.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

118. Nothing Funnier Then When People Make Up Their Own Definitions So That They Can Use Them In Argument

Cracks me the hell up!

Hate to break it to ya, but you are not of the power nor position to redefine what words actually like, ya know, mean and stuff.

[ThomCat]

120. Oh, wise and all knowing guru,

please grace us with your definition of sexism. :eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

123. See, ThomCat, That's Where You And I Differ. I Don't Make Up My Own Warped Definitions For Words.

I use the ones that actually, like, ya know, exist and stuff.

[ThomCat]

128. Then present one.

I've yet to see you present anything but ego and self-agrandizement.

And I've yet to see you come on to a thread to do anything more than be a contrarian pain in the ass. You contribute nothing positive.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

132. You're The One Doing The Attacking And Making Things Up ThomCat. So You're Projecting Again.

I'm amazed at how you seem to be talking about yourself in every post.

You attack a whole lot of DU'ers by saying they feel women are not human. You can't defend it and only offer empty attack.

You then move the goal posts and claim a whole lot of DU'ers are sexist towards women. You can't defend it and only offer empty attack.

Then you make up an amazingly warped definition of what sexism is. You can't defend it and only offer empty attack.

It is you that is the piece of work ThomCat. You think that just by sayin stuff it makes it true. Welcome to reality pal, it just doesn't work that way.

[ThomCat]

133. I'm attacking?

You're stalking me, following me around sniping at everything I post. :rofl:

I think you have a crush on me.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

138. Yes. Repeatedly And Blatantly.

And stalking you? :rofl:

Don't flatter yourself pal. Talk about egos! :spray:

[Cerridwen]

77. On a Democratic board, shouldn't that number read 0%?

Regardless of the actual number, which I don't have access to and if you do I'd love to have. DU only lists registered users, not registered users who are NOT TSed and who are active and/or regularly post here. And then there's that whole sock-puppet thing and we could have some really funky numbers. But, I digress...

Seriously, on a message board of Democrats, whom I'm pretty sure many believe are somewhere at least slightly left on the political spectrum, shouldn't the percentage of posters who think a human is anything less than human be 0%? Even taking into account the occasional troll who would seriously stand out if that were in fact the case.

I'd also like to note a slight change in wording to what you posted "sexism exists in addition to classism, racism...".

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

I know a guy who will vote for Hilary who uses the n-word and isn't very friendly to women either.

I'm not joking, either. This guy acts like an old southern redneck 95 percent of the time, but he hates Bush and the Republicans so much he'd vote for Hilary if he has to in the general election. I said I liked Edwards and he went off on me saying he has no chance and if it has to be Hilary than so be it.

Trust me, my jaw hit the floor when he said all this.

[Cerridwen]

92. "if it has to be Hillary then so be it"? What a weird thing to say and

what a weird way to say it; unless you take into account that he views women, and especially "that" woman, as the worst and most spiteful thing he could wish on his "enemies." He would "cut off his nose" and vote for a woman just to spite his face (enemies who equal shrub and the repubs).

Pretty ugly stuff if you think about it a bit.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

97. Trust me, I can't figure the guy out

I can only imagine what he thinks of Obama......

And to be honest, he never said he wouldn't vote for Hilary in a primary either.....seeing as he was so negative about Edwards.

[Cerridwen]

102. I imagine that would be quite "telling" to find out what he thinks of

Obama.

I have a whole lotta theories about that guy, but, not knowing him, it would all devolve into some sort of armchair, psych 101 psycho-babble. Which, now I think of it, I already did in my earlier post to you. LOL

[porphyrian]

85. Should that apply to republicants, too?

They are arguably human, right?

No, a Democratic board should represent the "big tent" group of people, not just the ones everyone agrees with. And I doubt there are ten or more people here who are actually sexist (or racist or classist). Most of the -isms we deal with here are manifestations of their institutionalization, which effects our perceptions and understanding of what's going on, often without our even realizing it. When someone makes that mistake here, they are immediately attacked and then become defensive, giving some the impression that "they" are everywhere. But don't be fooled by those who've developed their identity around being persecuted - the -ists are a very small minority here.

[Cerridwen]

99. Yes, it also applies to repubs. I've been around the political

process and environment too long to play the "making the enemy non-human" crap. We do ourselves a grave disservice and we lose far too many battles by dehumanizing the "enemy".

I wasn't arguing that we should all agree. I was stating that, as far as I know, the Democratic Party is the one in which we value all humanity. Period.

There are two things which I note in your post: "often without our ever realizing it" and "they are immediately attacked". In order to point out something to someone so they *will* realize it, it becomes necessary to point it out to them. However, any words to that effect are usually viewed as "attacking" the person. And, as you noted, they "then become defensive". The original thread which prompted this, attempted to address that. To little avail. There are far too many here who would hang on to their defensiveness rather than discuss how we can work together to move forward together.

[porphyrian]

106. With almost no exception, DUers do value all humanity.

That was my point.

Institutionalized -isms are often unconscious, don't you agree? And, while some people get defensive every time anything they post is questioned, you have to admit that those more often take the form of "attacks" than friendly alerts to the possibility of an institutionalized -ism.

[Cerridwen]

135. And my point is, that I, and apparently the OP and others here

recognize that while we may value all humanity, different segments of humanity have greater and lesser values than others.

If the standard by which we're valued is white; what does that make non-white? If the standard by which we're valued is hetero, what does that make non-hetero? If the standard by which we're valued is male, what does that make non-male? In short, the standard by which we are each valued and to which we are each held, has little to do with the reality in which we each live and presumes that a majority of the population is not "standard."

I disagree with that standard. Nor do I agree that we continue to allow that standard, let's call it status quo, be allowed to continue to be unconscious. The only way to change the status quo is to identify it, examine it, and decide if it is of benefit to all of humanity.

The same tactics apply whether it is addressed at the institutional level or at the personal level. To claim it is either/or allows far too many to prop up the institutional version while contributing to it and ignoring that we can impact the institutional from the personal level which will in turn change the institutional level which will in turn change the personal...and on and on.

What I admit to seeing is that many times, when women speak out in anger, the anger and the reasons for the anger are ignored or trivialized, demonized or silenced. As though women's anger is unacceptable. Women's voices raised in anger is the result of, not the cause of, the responses we receive when we speak out. I'd like for us to address the issues which resulted in the anger, rather than dismissing the expression of anger. Whether it's of importance or not, I do not think I am alone in this idea.


edit: grammar

[porphyrian]

185. I don't believe more than a tiny minority of DUers value humans that differently.

You seem to be confusing familiarity with value judgment - people are most comfortable with what they know and are familiar with. That does not mean that they value other things less. It means they are less comfortable with things they are less familiar with. So, not surprisingly, majority populations are generally less familiar with, and thus less comfortable with, the minority populations they don't really know. And this extends to the majority population's understanding of minority problems, many of which are not shared (and so are less understood) by the majority. This is where people are coming from, and where most of the miscommunication begins.

The "standard" you speak of is the institutionalized manifestation of a racist, classist and sexist societal norm, not a belief widely held by DUers. As it doesn't reflect reality, most people can be shown what it is if approached diplomatically, and I only say that because most people who perpetuate stereotypes aren't even aware that this is what they are doing, and take the correction as an attack or an argument. Of course the personal and institutional affect each other, but you can't effectively solve the problem if you don't understand what it is.

[Madspirit]

61. Take the blinders off your eyes...

The behavior speaks for itself. MOST of the women and gays find this place amazingly sexist, especially for a supposedly progressive site. We have PM "meetings" about it. It causes great dismay and concern. That's kind of like saying that you didn't know white people are racist. Or it's like..."I'm not racist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic BUT..."

Lee

[Name removed]

63. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[porphyrian]

66. You're the one with blinder problems, not me.

"Most" my ass. I doubt you are talking about even a hundred DUers. Blowing things out of proportion so insanely does nothing to help your cause or your credibility.

[ThomCat]

69. "your cause"

Then obviously it's not your cause either. Yet you claim only 1% don't support that cause. :eyes:

The problem isn't that feminists are blowing any problem out of proportion. It's that non-feminists have to be dragged kicking and screaming to recognize that there's any problem at all. And when non-feminists do bother to admit that there is a problem, they don't want to do anything about it or let anyone else do anything about it.

Poor defenseless men, with their greated relative wealth, legal standing, authority and resources need to be protected from those vicious feminists.
:eyes:

[porphyrian]

70. My cause is liberty and justice for all.

The "your cause" I speak of is trying to convince everyone that DUers are sexist, and no, that isn't my cause.

[ThomCat]

73. More Bullshit.

Your cause is pretending to support libery and justice for all as long as nobody acknowledges that some people don't have equal access to liberty and justice.

Anyone who doesn't see the sexism here either isn't looking, or is part of the problem.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Alexander]

122. "Anyone who doesn't see the sexism here either isn't looking, or is part of the problem."

Sounds a lot like

"If you're not with us, you're against us".

There are varying degrees of -isms, as another poster was trying to point out to you. You can't paint the world in black and white terms, so don't bother trying.

[ThomCat]

130. I never claim the world is black and white.

Unlike certain other people on this thread I've been an activist and been out there working to make things better. I'm too practical to see things in black and white.

Some people participate only to shoot down other people. Some people speak only to be negative. Those people are definitely part of the problem. They contribute nothing of value.

I'll happily accept anyone who contributes, no matter how little, but not people who contribute nothing.

[Alexander]

140. Then what was the purpose of that statement?

"Anyone who doesn't see the sexism here either isn't looking, or is part of the problem."

To divide DU into two groups - one that sees sexism as a huge problem on DU, and another which is oblivious and/or complacent - is a shining example of your black-and-white view of this.

There are varying degrees of sexism, and sexism also works both ways. I've encountered extreme sexism against both men and women here at DU, and while both are equally despicable, it's pretty rare to find someone with such attitudes here.

I could just as easily make the claim that there's massive sexism against men here at DU, based on many of the lovely responses I read regarding the Duke university rape case. But I would be wrong, much like you are now.

[Demeter]

64. Some Days I Think Women Are the ONLY Humans

other days, I'm convinced of it.

[LostInAnomie]

72. But, what are men?

Oh wait, I already have your answer: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1394933

[Cerridwen]

80. Not assholes? Way to lower the bar.....n/t

[LostInAnomie]

83. That isn't my assertion.

That is the assertion of the OP from an earlier locked thread.

I personally think that both genders should be respected as human beings.

[Cerridwen]

88. Nor was it the assertion of the OP in that thread.

The thread linked to a couple of articles in which people were discussing ways in which to carry on progressive and respectful dialogs, specifically within the Democratic/leftist/progressive community.

The title of the thread and the linked article of the same name, were written by a man, from within our political community, who was trying to get other men to understand that respect flows in both directions and to outline the ways in which men can be oblivious to their own insensitivity toward women, within our community.

I apologize for stating the obvious, if you already knew this.

[LostInAnomie]

108. The assertion was...

... both by the OP and by the author of the articles that:

1. When women begin to make unfounded sweeping generalizations about men, men should "Shut the fuck up".

2. When women make claims implicating men as a whole for things the grand majority are not even conceivably guilty of, men should not only "Shut the fuck up" but tell themselves that "They aren't talking about me".

For anyone that appreciates an open and honest debate this is ridiculous on its face. It was a shame that so many in that thread actually supported it.

The gender of the author has no bearing. Ann Coulter writes that women shouldn't have the right to vote and shouldn't be allowed to be soldiers, but that doesn't mean women shouldn't decry her as a fucking idiot.

[Cerridwen]

113. Actually, it was that when women use the term "men" they are *not*

making sweeping generalizations anymore than when you said "women" in #1, I did not presume you were speaking of all women but only those women who use the term "men" and that men should take the time to realize that. And that it was time for those men, the ones who make that assumption, to "Shut the fuck up".

It went on to note that when women point out the collusion of men (must I make the conditional "those kind of men" in order for you to read this as intended?) in perpetuating patriarchy and patriarchal systems and constructs and how (insert conditional here) men benefit from those constructs without being aware of it and by (insert conditional: frequently) benefiting from it to the detriment of all concerned.

Why do you think asking someone to examine their intent or prejudice is "ridiculous"? That's how we grow. That's how we learn from each other. We examine our "core beliefs" to see if they "work" in our world. I don't find that ridiculous at all.

The gender of the author had bearing on this particular article because, as he noted, perhaps (conditional) men would be more willing to take advice from another man. The absolute best people to fight against sexism as displayed by (conditional) men, is to have it outlined by a peer; in this case, another man. Which, in and of itself, is rather telling.

[LostInAnomie]

131. Then some women should learn the proper use of qualifiers.

When they recklessly throw around the word "men" to implicate a group of people it leads to confusion, especially when they show no real sign of differentiating. Instead of asking men to "Shut the fuck up" and say "it's not about me", he should have been telling some women to choose their words more carefully.

For instance, if I were to say "Women use feminism as a disguise misandry", it would be an incredibly inflammatory statement that no reasonable woman could think isn't inclusive. The same thing applies to when some women say "Men don't care when a woman is raped". There is nothing in that statement that would lead a man to think that he is not included, and it is not reasonable to ask him to "Shut the fuck up" instead of defending himself. The reasonable thing would be for some women to qualify their words to avoid confusion and confrontation. But, that really isn't the point for the bomb-thrower.

[Cerridwen]

145. Why? Why can't you learn "our" language? Why must we learn

"yours"? Funny thought, isn't it. I'm serious, take a moment and think about that.

In academic writing, the objective voice is frequently used. The idea being that the reader is cognizant enough of the style to recognize the style in which it is written. Why is there not, that same recognition of style applied to those words of women? There are styles of writing, some carry great impact using the force of the words; others eek into our minds through subtle images, still others paint pictures in our minds. Hopefully, we all write with an intended and understood audience in mind and proceed accordingly.

Why would you presume that someone writing in a generalized manner, i.e., "men" rather than "some men" "most men", etc., would be inclusive of the whole? When you read "scientists have discovered..." do you presume "all" scientists? Or only those scientists who research in that field; or only scientists who work in that field and happen to have worked on that discovery? When you read "Democrats are working to..." do you presume "all" Democrats or only those who are "working to..."? What other generalizations do you presume apply to the whole rather than to the specific; and somehow by implication, to you?

[LostInAnomie]

159. Because when they use is an objective voice the end result can look like a sexist rant.

I am not asking anyone to use "my" language (I didn't realize there was such a thing). I am asking that some women use common sense and use qualifiers to avoid confrontation and alienation when making implications about a group of people. That is a far more reasonable request than to tell someone to "Shut the fuck up".

When is read "scientists have discovered...", or "Democrats are working to..." it is followed by information that would identify that it is not inclusive. If I were to write "Women just can't drive", or "There is no question that women use sex to get ahead", there is no indication whatsoever that I am not implicating all women. It would be unreasonable for me to assume that it could read as anything other than sexism.

[Cerridwen]

161. Ah, but there is such a thing.

It's quite an interesting study to read about "women's ways of talking/knowing" versus "men's way of talking/knowing" when examined as something other than the punchline to a joke.

The articles linked did in fact have qualifiers which stated specifically to whom they were targeted.

But, for now, my eyes are bleery and my terrier is insisting I pay attention to him and my stomach is growling and you and I probably won't agree on this any time soon. :)

So, I'll take my leave and hope we've found some common ground on which to disagree for some other day.

[noamnety]

166. "scientists have discovered"

That's one of those explanations that will stick with me. Thank you.

It's beyond belief to me that "men" :D get all bent out of shape about the inclusiveness or exclusiveness of that word, while it doesn't trouble their heads at all to praise "All men are created equal" as a founding principle of this country.

[Cerridwen]

181. I was inspired by all the great responses in this thread.

:D


Have you noticed that a lot of the disruption in this thread is posted by 2 main posters? See my response in #202 above, to one of those posters. I wonder how close he is to the other poster acting in much the same way?

Better look quickly because I'm pretty sure it won't be around for long. Fortunately, I've save a copy of it should it succumb to the arbitrary and selective, er, disappearing act.

[ismnotwasm]

110. Really?

Then lets work together so women are no longer considered the sex class, with all the dehumanization,animalization and objectification that goes right along with it. We can get rid of patriarchy as well seeing how we're so friendly and all.

[stirlingsliver]

103. I Enjoyed Eating Popcorn There, Too!

I enjoyed eating popcorn while watching that show, too!

I have to go buy some more popcorn soon, I fear!

[Katherine Brengle]

151. I guess you didn't read that one very carefully now, didja?

[LostInAnomie]

160. No, I read it.

And, it was a load of shit.

[wtmusic]

86. And your innocent little post turns into a flamefest

Some things on DU are inevitable.

[Guaranteed]

93. That's what happens when you split people up into groups and

pit them against each other.

[Toasterlad]

168. Good Call.

:thumbsup:

[Katherine Brengle]

152. I had a sneaking suspicion that it might - and I needed to know just how far people

would go to defend patriarchy.

I guess we know now.

[stirlingsliver]

101. I Like Popcorn!

I surely do enjoy eating popcorn while watching a show like this.

I hate it that popcorn has become so much more expensive, though.

[Marie26]

105. LOL, "Women are human" causes a flamewar.

Such a controversial & inflammatory statement. Don't you know that saying that we're all human divides & sets people against each other? :sarcasm:. Only at DU.

[stirlingsliver]

107. Do You Think I Would Need To Buy Some Popcorn If....

Do you think I would need to buy some popcorn if the thread were titled, "We Are All -- Men and Woman -- Human"?

[ThomCat]

109. The whole point is that men are considered human by default.

Women have been fighting to be recognized as human.

There have been religious debates about whether women have souls (souls of their own, or only extension of their fathers/husbands souls).

There have been historical debates about whether women are closer to animals than to man.

Women's rights activists and feminists have been arguing for their humanity for centuries. This is not a question out of the blue. And despite some bone-headed posts on this thread, it's still an ongoing fight.

This is an excellent topic that brings in a whole lot of historical precedent. I applaude Katherine for this thread.
:applause:

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

142. WTF????

Give me a fucking break. Seriously, did you timewarp in from the mid-1700's or something?

Only lunatics believe that a woman has no soul or is not human, and only lunatics think that normal, sane people might possibly believe a woman is in fact, not human.

It's sad you have such little faith in humanity that you actually believe this. Why don't you go argue with the people who still think the world is flat while you're at it too. That's about as productive as well.

[stirlingsliver]

201. I Guess That Means "Yes"

I guess you mean to say "Yes" to my question.

I guess that means that I would need to get some popcorn.

Because posting something like "We are -- all of us, male and female -- human" would start a flame war.

[Marie26]

112. And what is the difference?

Think about it. What is the difference between saying "men & women are human", and saying "women are human"? Why is one supposedly controversial? Is it in dispute that women are human? Or what? IMO, the flame war this simple statement inspires seems to imply that it is controversial or disturbing to some people. Too funny. Too weird. I've given up trying to understand why.

Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings - Cheris Kramerae

[stirlingsliver]

202. Humanism Is The Radical Notion

I hear what you are saying.

Humanism is the radical notion that all of us -- men and women -- are human beings. And humanism is also the radical notion that all of us -- men and women -- are brothers and sisters.

I guess that is just too controversial, too.

[lukasahero]

213. What's the difference?

Here's how I see it:

Some here are so threatened by the very idea of a thought, a concept, a thread SOLELY about women, that they have to inject men into the conversation.

To some, the words "women are human" can't possibly be a comment about women alone.

It has to instead be a threat because men have been left out of the conversation.

And we just can't have the world thinking about women and women's issues without considering how it might affect men, now can we?

[lumberjack_jeff]

111. Absolutely. For good and for ill. n/t

[U4ikLefty]

114. Yes they are.

[Akoto]

116. I just checked Wikipedia. Women are, indeed, human. n/t

[EstimatedProphet]

119. Beautifully human, I might add.

[illinoisprogressive]

127. I think we all know this.

[Katherine Brengle]

146. Wow, I really didn't think anyone was going to respond.

Lookie what happens when you post and then leave to go grocery shopping.

[stevedeshazer]

149. Sometimes, flamebait works.

That is all.

[Katherine Brengle]

154. It shouldn't bring flames - the fact that it did just goes to show how far we

still have to go.

[supernova]

150. It's truely a sight

to behold.

:-( :P

*shaking head*

[Cerridwen]

153. LOL "We" (not me so much, but many others) kept it going for you

whether you wanted it or not, dangit!

:rofl:

Welcome baaaack.

:D

[Jed Dilligan]

155. Strange how little it takes to throw people into a tizzy, eh?

[jpgray]

177. People in tizzies are human

:eyes:

[Jed Dilligan]

190. That statement

does not bother me in the slightest.

[jpgray]

176. Well, when your implication is that some DUers see women as subhuman

I'm not surprised at this response. I mean really, how condescending is calling that title a "public service announcement?" Going to start one for other oppressed groups? Let's see them all to the greatest page!

[Starbucks Anarchist]

157. I agree?

EDIT: The question mark was a half-assed attempt at levity. Obviously, I agree with the statement in the OP.

:hi:

[otherlander]

162. All of them?

Because then I'm going to need a word besides "women" to describe female orangutans.

[Madspirit]

165. Sadness and Shame

There is some Wonderful Feminist sentiment in this thread. Some absolutely fabulous sisters and brothers have weighed in on this.

That there could be ANY dissent or flaming in a thread that states "Women are Human" is a True Horror however and the saddest and most pathetic thing I've seen in a long long time. This is a board that claims to have such progressive politics and ideals it calls itself "Underground".

Really really shameful....
Lee

[Luna_C_06]

169. I really don't have anything to add

to this thread other than that I really admire you, thomcat, and undergroundpanther (I hope I got her name right).

[Madspirit]

170. Thank-you and welcome to DU!...n/t

[Katherine Brengle]

171. Exactly.

I'm also struck by how many people posted without sitting back for a moment and wondering why it needed to be said. Of course, that's a lot less disturbing than the other stuff.

BTW - thanks for that other thread - that org looks very interesting.

[LostInAnomie]

192. I don't see anyone actually disagreeing with the statement that "women are human".

I see a lot of people taking issue with the poorly thought out extrapolations and claims without merit that made by some in support.

I really object to all the posts that claim that the flames were over the statement "Women are Human". It only serves to paint DU members as sexist which is clearly not true. It is either ignorant or disingenuous, at best, to claim otherwise.

[Madspirit]

195. Yup...all us women claiming it are just wrong

It's probably hysteria or the wrong time of the month. Jeez, being dismissive is one of the MOST sexist behaviors.
Lee

[LostInAnomie]

196. And, making shit up is just fucking stupid.

Sexism has nothing to do with it. I'm dismissive because it's a ridiculous argument to make. No rational person can honestly make the argument that even 1/10 of 1% of DUers view women as less than human. So save your bullshit charges until you have some actual proof to back something up.

[Madspirit]

197. YOU are prima facia proof enough...n/t

[LostInAnomie]

199. So in other words, you've got nothing and are resulting to name calling.

Good job, you must be so proud. :eyes:

[Madspirit]

200. Keep proving my point. I LOVE it...n/t

[LostInAnomie]

203. The only thing I'm proving is that you can't back up your charges.

You have yet to show me even one post where a DUer has claimed that women are less than human. One would think that for someone so sure of what they are charging people with they would have something to back them up. But, I guess that's a little too much to expect out of someone that resorts to name calling so early in the game.

I await your next post, where you prove my point yet again.

[Madspirit]

204. I already said...ALL us women are just lying and making it up....

It's not just what you say, it's how you act. The obvious disdain and dismissiveness. The denial. I talk to 100s of women from this group in PMs and on group too. Go read all the women. Do you REALLY think we are just making it up? That would be stunning if you really believed that. If it is how we feel and what we see, something must be going on. Don't be so stupid and obtuse.
Lee

[LostInAnomie]

205. I'm dismissive of bullshit when I smell it.

You said, "That there could be ANY dissent or flaming in a thread that states "Women are Human" is a True Horror..." charging that people are disagreeing with the assertion that "Women are Human". This is patently false since you can't find one post in this there that even remotely asserts such a thing. Then when you were called on your bullshit you started calling me "sexist", "stupid", and "obtuse" instead of admitting that you are wrong.

Either find some proof to back up your assertion, or admit you are wrong.

[Madspirit]

207. women here are bullshit

...and YOU are a belligerent member of the pork family.
...and now on Ignore...so Rant away to prove how non-sexist you are. Go on...show us now...RANT...Rant...Rant...Rant...Rant.... Show us what a manly man you are and gentleman and a scholar.... :rofl: Ranting in women's faces and on women's threads ALWAYS shows what a gentle man and lovely human you are. :rofl:

Lee

[stirlingsliver]

208. Brava!! Brava!!

I just LOVE eating popcorn!

I so enjoy popcorn!

Thanks for all you do to make my popcorn eating so enjoyable!!

[Madspirit]

210. We Actually

:popcorn: We actually have a popcorn eating emoticon. There won't be any more from me because the Neanderthal is now on Ignore. I don't "see" it/him at all.

Lee

[stirlingsliver]

211. Darn!

Such a grand performance -- now ended.

How sad.

I so enjoy the show.....and the popcorn.

[LostInAnomie]

209. Strawmen are bullshit, and it seems to be all you are left with.

What a freaking coward. :rofl:

Too stubborn to admit that you are wrong so you run away and put me on ignore. :rofl:

You call me names and have the gall to call me "belligerent"! And, imply that I'm a sexist even though I have said nothing that could even be remotely regarded as such! :eyes:

Name calling, poor logic, and a lack of courage, you're a real asset to DU. :rofl:

Go back to your little group that can't stand to have their claims challenged. You won't be missed.

[stirlingsliver]

212. I Can't Believe You Said THAT!

OMG!

You didn't really say THAT, did you?

[sniffa]

174. i thought they were venetians

and men were martians.

[jpgray]

175. Men are human. Gays are human. Buddhists are human. Skinheads are human. Long live tautology!

If only everyone could recommend -this- post. I correctly identified several humans!

[gollygee]

178. This becomes a flame war?

Wow. I don't know why people respond at all if they think it's self-evident. Unless they wanted to say, "Yes, this is self-evident". But when people reply by getting all huffy, it feels like they're saying, "Yes, you're human, but don't think that changes anything."

[jpgray]

179. Part of it I think is the condescension--DU hardly needs reminders women are human

The rest are probably those who have had run ins with the poster before, and are responding in part to their history with the OP, not the message.

[LostInAnomie]

194. Agreed. No one took issue with "Women are Human"...

... people took issue with the meritless claims and accusations made by some DUers that thrive on sanctimony and "ideological purity".

[noamnety]

214. Part of it is that people don't know the literature

I think a few people had a knee-jerk reaction without realizing it's a reference to a classic work.

[stirlingsliver]

215. 214 Posts

It takes 214 posts (actually, more than that -- there were some deleted sub-threads) before anyone stating that the thread's title is a reference to a classic work.

It might have been nice if the OP had done that. Way before post #214.

[noamnety]

216. I think the thread is more interesting this way, actually.

Not sure if I should have posted the reference or not, to be honest.

[cyborg_jim]

184. Nonsense! They're entirely different words.

[Retired AF Dem]

186. Growing up with three sisters

and having raised two daughters, I really wonder if teenage girls are human.

[lukasahero]

187. Does anyone else feel absolutely flabbergasted

that this thread has garnered this much argument?

"Women are human."

How on earth can anyone find something to argue about in this OP? Is it really so offensive a statement to some people that it could spawn at least 3 deleted sub-threads?

Wow. It's no wonder I don't hang out here much any more. This place is insane.

[Kablooie]

188. but men are from Mars.

Even though I saw a movie once about Mars being run by women who kept men as slaves.

but I seriously doubt that that is the Martian reality

[gulliver]

189. Then explain cosmetics.

At least men aren't vain.

(Disclaimer. The preceding is a joke, however unfunny it may strike the reader. It is not intended as a serious comment. This poster realizes women are human, agreeing in all respects with the OPs contention. Please do not kill this poster.)

[KAT119]

191. k&R!! Thank you....Well Stated and True!!

I Am Woman Hear Me Roar!!

[Cetacea]

206. "Boxing Helena".

Sad.

[noamnety]

217. Men Are Human

They were fed a fattening diet long on butter and bacon. Their skin was rubbed with grease to make them appear healthy, and their hair was blacked with shoe polish in order to make them seem younger than they were. Often, they were told to lie about their ages and origins, to hide any history of running away or resisting and to exaggerate their abilities in order to bring a better price--and told they would be beaten if they did not. The traders set the slaves to dancing and capering around the yard to make them seem healthy, lively and pliable. "Sometimes I have seen them dancing when their cheeks were wet with tears," wrote the fugitive slave William Wells Brown, who had been the enslaved steward of a Mississippi River trader ...

Among slaveholders, discernment in the matter of buying human flesh was a mark of some distinction.

http://www.lctreview.org/article.cfm?id_article=63670481&page=1&id_issue=15896043

It's not really that hard to understand why someone in a group with a history of having been bought and sold as commodities, and rated on individual body parts as if the purpose of those parts was serving a master, when they are still around the world being bought and sold in commodities, and when they are still viewed not as "a person" but as "a black person" with that always in front, always, might come to a point where their protest signs look like this:



And it's not so hard to understand, when a man isn't referred to as a person, but instead as an "illegal", or other slurs meant to insult and degrade them, why they would feel a need to make such a statement: