Why we (feminists) fight.

[Katherine Brengle]

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008277.html

Remember how we had that discussion recently about the statement Women are Human?

This was written by a man who clearly disagrees with that claim.

I know, I know, he's a conservative right? He's not like you, so it doesn't matter, right?

Wrong.

While he is just crazy enough to come right out and say what he means, most keep these thoughts inside, just beneath the surface. Most are smart enough not to make such inflammatory statements in public.

Maybe you joke about it with your friends. Maybe you'll see some truth in this. Maybe you "aren't sexist, but" you will find things to defend in this.

Whatever you do, read it. Because this is why we fight. This is why the world needs feminists - half the world anyway.

You say we got the vote, the right to a job outside the home, the right to an abortion and birth control, the right to divorce, so we should be happy. We've come a long way baby, so you say.

But underneath all of that supposed progress there lies a lot of scary truth. The truth that voting only gets you so far. The truth that lots of people who hate you also have that right to vote, and will use it to subvert your freedoms whenever possible. The truth that that job we worked so hard to get pays significantly less because you have a vagina and a uterus and breasts and the world is scared to death of them. The truth that your right to an abortion and birth control could disappear at any moment. The truth that once you get through that divorce, there is no guarantee that the father of your children will assume any responsibility for their welfare.

The truth is, a lot of things are better than they once were - this is no secret.

But it's not good enough. And losses in political power and diminishing vigilance could mean that these rights will be lost again.

This is why we still fight.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Aw. I thought this was gonna be an within-the-system vs revolutionary thread....

... Those are fun.

[Katherine Brengle]

2. Might not be a bad idea lol.

Of course, you could probably time the descent into flamewar in seconds on the fingers of one hand.

:D

[BlooInBloo]

3. I can count to 1. :)

[Breeze54]

75. I can't stand you, more and more...each day.

It's a pity.

I've tried to like you but it's getting harder and harder daily.

[BlooInBloo]

83. I suggest you stop trying.

[Quantess]

175. Dude, don't f***ing mock women.

You want to take your argument elsewhere? Take your stupid comments here. Argue with me.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

4. So very true. Thank you and recommended! eom

[lulu]

5. Thank you for posting this link

These are mainstream, right wing ideas about women. A co-worker at company I used to work for, a gentleman in his sixties, once told me that birth control was the greatest disaster of western civilization. He said that to me as if it were the most reasonable thing in the world. He yearned for the old days, where little boys grew up in places like Mayberry and mothers and wives stayed in the kitchen. Since I am female, I have no idea why he chose to tell me this. I didn't reply to his comment, but asked him about his daughter, the one he was always bragging about, who was making a mint at pharmaceutical sales. Wonder if she takes birth control? Hmmmmmmm.

[Katherine Brengle]

8. Exactly. I would take it a step further and say that a lot of liberal men

are on the same page, just not out loud.

It's pervasive.

In my dentist's office, there are two dentists. One is a woman and one is a man. I usually see the woman, but I didn't specify last time and they made my appointment with the male doctor.

He was an older man, generally pleasant.

However, he decided to tell me a little story as he was scraping my teeth. About his daughter, who broke one of her teeth when she had some sort of minor accident playing volleyball or something. She was about 12 I believe.

He took her to another dentist, a friend of his, to get it fixed. The other (male) dentist expressed shock and said, "You don't usually see this problem in girls her age."

My dentist asked why.

He said, "Because, she's a little too old to fall off her bike but too young to get beat up by her boyfriend."

This was supposed to be funny.

[wicket]

18. "Because, she's a little too old to fall off her bike but too young to get beat up by her boyfriend"

YUCK!!!

:puke:

[Katherine Brengle]

39. Yeah I thought I might puke.

I'm still pissed that I didn't say anything - but it was a little hard when he had that plaque scraper thing in my mouth.

[JitterbugPerfume]

154. Believe me lulu, that world never existed

except in mens imagination.

I know because I was there.They miss that world because women were oppressed ,and it was truly a mans world.

[aikoaiko]

6. fight the good fight.

Sorry, I hate reading blogs. I got to the second entry and bailed.

[JitterbugPerfume]

7. thank you Katherine

as women we need to always know how fragile our "freedom" is .

Men fear the power of women , and that should be obvious to any thinking person .


Unfortunately, it is not

[AnotherGreenWorld]

13. I don't fear the power of women. Therefore the general statement "Men fear the power of women"

is false.

[wicket]

14. It's kind of like your generalization on another thread that a rich person.....

....can't possibly care about the poor.

:shrug:

[AnotherGreenWorld]

16. Not relevant. And quote where I said that. In fact, I said exactly the opposite.

[wicket]

17. It's completely relevant

Don't complain about generalizations & then do it yourself.

But the degree to which he genuinely cares is suspect when he lives as luxuriously as he does.

i.e. Because he lives luxuriously he can't possibly care for the poor. Right. :eyes:

[AnotherGreenWorld]

22. This is the whole post.

And you're right that it's not impossible for a rich person to care about, and advocate for, the poor. But the degree to which he genuinely cares is suspect when he lives as luxuriously as he does.

So I made two propositional claims: one, a rich person can care about the poor; two, a rich person can advocate for the poor.

Then I looked at this specific case of John Edwards. My own opinion, having grown up poor, is that if I lived as luxuriously as he does, people would have good reason to question my alleged care for the poor. They might be wrong. But when one lives like that, at the very least it causes suspicion.

[supernova]

23. And JE has the right

to prove the naysayers wrong.

And please folks, lets not sidetrack this thread and the Human Rights of Women into a primary debate.

[wicket]

27. "lets not sidetrack this thread and the Human Rights of Women into a primary debate"

You are right :hi:

[supernova]

28. Oopsie!

Should have said "about the Human Rights of Women"

[wicket]

29. no worries!

:D

[JitterbugPerfume]

35. quit nit picking

[JitterbugPerfume]

36. perhaps I should have said

certain powerful men, and abusive husbands

[BlooInBloo]

51. No. Lots of unintelligent people with nothing to contribute spend their time being pedantic...

... It's no reflection on you, or what you said.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[AnotherGreenWorld]

56. Piss off because I'm not afraid of women?

[BlooInBloo]

160. Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

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

[AnotherGreenWorld]

182. Umm

I know women are smart. I actually think women are generally smarter than men.

I don't fear women though. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

[BoneDaddy]

167. it is just a

meme put out there that, like you said, to generate a further division of the sexes and still adheres to some antiquated notion that men fear women. Simply not true.

[Quantess]

189. You're cool. So are are the men who are like you, BoneDaddy.

But many, many, males are total F***ing jerks, to put it mildly.
You can't stop them. I can't stop them. This is what it means to be Human, I guess.

[BoneDaddy]

190. I have known many men who are jerks

and many who are the most love filled individuals I have ever met. Likewise, I know many women who embody the spirit of what it means to be truly human and many who are demonic in the way they treat others. I tire of the childish all or none statements made by many on these boards about gender.

[Sapere aude]

48. No men do not fear the power of women. You fear facing reality.

It is so easy to put things in a black and white context. Some men may fear the power of women but those are the ones who don't really matter. They are unstable in themselves. Today most men were born in the age where men and women vote and do not know a time when it wasn't so.

[wicket]

57. "Some men may fear the power of women but those are the ones who don't really matter."

They control the Supreme Court. They may be unstable but they are in power.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

71. And do Justices Breyer and Stevens fear women?

Or do we have to refine that statement too? And does it turn out in the end that there's nothing inherent about having an X and a Y chromosome that makes one fear another member of species Homo Sapiens with an X and an X chromosome?

[wicket]

73. Stevens & Breyers are not in the majority on the court

Hence why I said those in that mindset CONTROL the court, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, etc.

If you need to refine your statement, be my guest :hi:

[AnotherGreenWorld]

77. Ok. I misread your statement, confusing it with a later comment.

I thought your "They" was referring to men in general. I thought you meant "Men control the Supreme Court."

Regardless, it seems that it has finally been established that all men actually don't fear women. Were it not for Stevens and Breyers, women would not have a right to abortion. So they obviously don't fear women.

And although I don't agree with Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts, I really don't think they fear women either. They have different views. But I think claiming that they hold the views that they do simply because they're afraid of women is simplistic. And that's frightening.

[wicket]

80. I think it's frightening that they have so much control over my reproductive freedom

But you'll never ever be able to understand that.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

84. It doesn't follow that they fear women though.

[wicket]

86. They fear women having control over their lives and making their own decisions

It's the "daddy knows best" mentality of the patriarchy.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

92. How do you know that?

Personally most of the people I know who are rabidly anti-choice are women. (I know that this isn't representative, btw). And although I can't know their psychological state, I really don't think they fear women. I just think they have wrong facts about abortion--they think, for example, that a fetus is a baby, and that abortion is tantamount to murder.

[wicket]

95. Let me know when women start bombing clinics and killing abortion doctors

n/t

[AnotherGreenWorld]

98. No one on the Supreme Court--not even the men!--has bombed an abortion clinic.

I'm asking how you know those specific individuals fear women. I think they're wrong on the abortion issue. But I don't think they're wrong because of some irrational fear of women.

[wicket]

101. I didn't say that, now did I

I was responding to your "Personally most of the people I know who are rabidly anti-choice are women." comment.



I'm asking how you know those specific individuals fear women.

It's my opinion, try some critical thinking ;)

[AnotherGreenWorld]

104. Opinions should have reasons to support them.

[Quantess]

176. I'm waiting for your response to #101.

Let's hear your tirade of family friendly reasoning.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

180. I already responded to 101....

What else is there to say if someone simply says, "it's my opinion"?

[wicket]

181. Just like there isn't much else to say to someone acting like a brick wall

:hi:

[Quantess]

188. Let it be on the record that

"AnotherGreenWorld" is not only boring, he's lazy as well...

[Quantess]

172. "No one on the Supreme Court--not even the men!--has bombed an abortion clinic."

You are weird, funny, and a monument to anti-choicers.
And, a hilarious moment to everyone else!

[wicket]

183. "And, a hilarious moment to everyone else!"

Yes!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:D

[Quantess]

170. Hello. I think you and I should get to know one another.

I am also pro-choice. You seem interesting. Who are those women you know, who are rabidly anti-choice?

[otherlander]

196. The Freeper ones.

[lynnertic]

178. Fear, or loathing?

[wicket]

179. Good point

It's probably a little of both.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

87. And wouldn't it be just as frightening if nine women with the views of Ann Coulter

or even Harriet Miers had so much control over your reproductive freedom? Do such women also fear women, btw?

[wicket]

89. The currently reality is much more frightening

n/t

[AnotherGreenWorld]

93. So the idea of nine women who not only would want to overturn Roe but could quite easily

frightens you less than eight men and a woman who as of now, as a group, with fervent dissent from the liberal block, are merely slowly chipping away at Roe?

[wicket]

94. I only deal in reality

Not some imagined-never-going-to-happen-BS.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

97. Critical thinking requires hypothetical thinking.

[wicket]

99. You're asking me to imagine 9 Ann Coulters on the Supreme Court

That's not hypothetical, that's hysterical. As for critical thinking, you might want to try it yourself.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

103. The point is merely to imagine a situation such that

the nine Justices of the Supreme Court are women who hold the same views as Thompson. If there were nine female Thompsons, Roe would be overturned. And that would only be the beginning.

In what way is the current situation more frightening than that?

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

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

[Scout]

156. it's fearing women's POWER, not fearing an individual woman, get it right. n/t

[ThomCat]

58. Start a discussion here about

Divorce, child support and alimony

Or about whether or not a boyfriend/father has a right to determine whether a woman has an abortion

Or about the previlence of rape and sexual assault, and how rarely men get arrested or face charges for it

You'll see a whole lot of men who seem to be afraid of women's power.

[Sapere aude]

64. I said some men fear the power of women but most of us don't and to say

flat out that men fear the power of women is not correct. Sure I know a bunch of male "pieces of shit" and they make me embarrassed for my gender. The only way they can relate to women is make "things" out of them rather than see them as persons or co-workers. I think the word is to "objectify" women. They fear the power of women to reject them. But most guys as I said were born when there were voting rights for women and most men would support the ERA if it came around again I think.

Conservatives fear the power of women to take the country in a progressive direction but they make up only 30% of the population I think.

For me personally. I want my wife to have every advantage because that way we both win.

[Madspirit]

70. If you didn' t fear the power of women

You would have "gotten" what this is about and would not have felt a NEED to comment. YOU obviously fear the power of women or even discussing it wouldn't make you whine like a bitty baby.
Lee

[Sapere aude]

72. Man you sure have a vivid imagination.

[Madspirit]

78. I stand by what I said

I have a lot of friends of color. I hear their rage and their hate and I "get" why they have it. I don't sit around whining about how "well, all white people aren't like that." If you don't "GET" the rage of the oppressed, you are, at best, enabling the oppressor and at worst, you are the oppressor.

Feeling the NEED to come on a thread like this and correct the OP just shows a whole lot about YOU.

Lee

[ThomCat]

79. I agree.

The defensiveness says a lot.

[Sapere aude]

81. You have a vivid imagination also.

Please tell me what it is about women I could possibly be afraid of? I can't think a single woman I'm afraid of or a group of women. Please enlighten me.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

96. Are you pro-choice?

[Sapere aude]

100. Yes why do you ask?

I believe a woman is the only one who has the right to decide what she should do with her body.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

102. Yeah, me too.

Just wanted to point that out since people are now claiming you fear women too.

[Sapere aude]

105. I really don't fear men either. I'm 61 years old and happily married.

I think that what is good for women is good for my wife and therefore good for me. I don't fear any man or woman nor do I put them on a pedestal.

I have been studying Buddhism and I read that all of us share with all living creatures what is divine and that includes women so I respect and recognize the divinity in them and I don't have anything to fear from them.

[Madspirit]

85. The defensiveness says it all...n/t

[eridani]

168. Too bad that white privilege isn't something you can just take off--

--like an extra layer of clothing. Though there are plenty of white people who would like to do that, it isn't, and you can't. I assume that there are men who feel that way about male privilege, but if someone is defensive about the issue, that pretty much establishes that he isn't one of them.

[Madspirit]

69. hahaha...dream on. Supreme Court anyone?...n/t

[JitterbugPerfume]

155. I have had 67 years

in which to face reality.

I faced reality when I left an abusive husband and raised five kids by myself .

don't tell me what reality is.

[cally]

9. Yesterday I heard another story about abuse

and marriage. I know so many women who have been abused, raped, and degraded. I just don't understand the hatred of women. That is why I fight.

[femrap]

10. I think the hatred stems from fear of women...

And of course this is jammed into the heads of males their entire life and from all areas...esp. religions.

Patriarchy Sucks.

[Katherine Brengle]

41. I don't understand it either.

But I will do everything in my power to destroy it.

[supernova]

11. Thank you Katherine

:applause: :applause:

Most on the progressive side, including a lot of women, don't realize that while our freedoms might be broad, they are damn shallow and can be reversed at any time. All it takes is a few years of conservative rule. They want to roll back everything that we have gained. They want to make sure we have less of a voice, not more of one. They want to make sure that when we need justice, we are the ones who are punished, not our perpetrators.

Do you really want a diminished life for your wife? Your mother? Your daughter? Your sister?

[wicket]

12. Amen!!!!

Thank-you for posting.

K &R

:kick:

[treestar]

15. There is something comforting about that victim stance

This seems to be DU's day for it.

Several years ago I read most of the feminist works and felt it. It's hard to explain, but it makes you feel better.

But we have to abandon and go forward, since it gets us nowhere. Results only in depression.

We have the right to vote and that undermines the far right's vision of the Way Things Ought to Be. Whenever I'm feeling down, I look at a right wing publication - it tells me how much the feminists have won (along with the socialists, etc) and how the world is so damaged by the fact that women can do more than be wives and have children.

Look to the future and be hopeful, because the trend is going your way. Work toward that rather than dwelling on those who want to turn the clock back. They're the ones in the hopeless place, because long term, they're not going to get what they want.

[ThomCat]

24. If you look to the future without feminism

then what kind of future are you fighting for?

Do you really want to abandon the right to work in the careers of your choice, and get paid a fair wage for it?
Do you really want to abandon efforts to protect women from rape and sexual assault and sexual harassment?
Do you really want to abandon the efforts to have women treated equally with men under the law?

Who, other than feminists, have spearheaded these efforts over and over and over again until they became mainstream?

[hfojvt]

59. treestar did not say anything about abandoning feminism

Only about abandoning pessimism. Treestar reads rightwing publications because they wail about the successes of feminism and socialism. It's fun to laugh at their despair, because they are losing and will continue to lose. Are feminists going to motivate the base with fear about what we might lose, or with hope and celebration about what we have gained and what we will gain.

Although, maybe I shouldn't say 'we' as a white man.


"The Lone Ranger and Tonto are surrounded by hostile Indians, and the Lone Ranger says to Tonto 'well, it looks like we've ridden to the end of our trail.' Tonto looks back and says 'What do you mean 'we' white man?'"

[treestar]

61. you certainly can saw "we" when you are on the same side

We can believe in equality for those in a group we are not in.

:hi:

[treestar]

60. I don't. We need feminism. Since it is mainstream, that should make

the next step easier.

The Right Wing gets more and more hysterical precisely because of that.

[ThomCat]

63. Agreed.

[Katherine Brengle]

42. Absolutely, no dwelling. But no apathy either.

And apathy is what most people express when confronted with most issues.

Vigilance doesn't mean dwelling - it means not quitting until the mere possibility of regression is destroyed.

:D

[alarimer]

50. The one who want to turn the clocks back ARE IN CHARGE!

They run the country, those Neanderthals run the Supreme Court. Damn right we are scared, it is only a matter of overturning one or two cases to turn back the clock. They are gunning for us.

[treestar]

62. True, but what chance do they have of winning, really?

I'm pretty optimistic that a vast majority just don't want to turn the clock back.

We can use this to support the Democratic candidate for President too. Scare the voters with the judges the right wingers will pick. In fact it might be a good idea to find out who some of them are - Circuit Court judges who have made terrible rulings - and make ads that "threaten" the voters with these judges.

And the court can only do so much, what it messes with Congress and States can often do something to turn back, so it's a temporary setback.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

106. I wonder about how liberal of judges Clinton would appoint.

Martin Garbus was on CSPAN not too long ago, and he mentioned that he thought Clinton would likely appoint centrist judges, whereas Obama, he thought, was more likely to appoint more liberal judges.

[ThomCat]

19. The difference between there and here,

There, you have assholes arguing that women should not have all the same rights as men.

Here, everyone at least claims that women should have the same rights, but some people seem to think those rights should only exist in theory.

In practice some people seem to think that women shouldn't succeed at using any of those rights to influence the political agenda, advance women's equality, raise "women's issues," or actually accomplish anything. Women are supposed to use their rights to agree with men.

Not only are there still a lot of reasons for feminist to fight, feminists are still struggling for the right to participate in that fight.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Hmm.

"Here... some people seem to think those rights should only exist in theory."

Who would that be?

[ThomCat]

25. That group of people who consistently show up

to bash feminism at every oportunity, who claim they support women's right but always seem to be on the offensive against the people who actually fight for women's rights.

[wicket]

26. Too many to count

Unfortunately :(

[mrreowwr_kittty]

31. The "what about the men!" coalition

Who will attempt to hijack and derail threads until everyone acknowledges that "men have problems too!". Most of them seem to be curiously incapable of addressing those issues themselves. According to them, feminists cannot do anything to seek better conditions for women throughout the world until we first take care of whatever ordeals men are going through, to prove that we are not just focused on women. Even though we repeatedly tell them that, despite our belief that feminism will ultimately improve the lives of men, we are just focused on women. Which invariably leads to accusations of "misandry!" and "you don't just want equality, you want all the power!" Which then leads to some version of patronizing bullshit like: "Ya know, if you keep acting like that, you're going to alienate men and we won't help you. Then where will you be?" The response to that is easy: Exactly where we were before, since you weren't helping us anyway.

[supernova]

32. Why do they never

start their own threads? If they want to talk about men's problems, why don't they write their own posts and discuss them? No one is stopping them.

I don't understand the need to hijack threads about women's equality.

[Katherine Brengle]

47. Because most of their "issues" aren't

real. They are bullshit debate talking points used only to diminish the causes of feminism, not to bolster their own movement.

[Katherine Brengle]

46. "Exactly where we were before, since you weren't helping us anyway."

EXACTLY.

If I sit around waiting for men to defend my rights, I will be dust in the wind before it happens.

Feminism is first and foremost about making life better for WOMEN.

And you know what? I, for one, will NEVER apologize for it.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

116. But there are men who defend women's rights.

[ThomCat]

121. She's not talking about those few men.

She's talking about all the men who claim, swear, promise that they defend women's rights, but then don't. There are a lot of guys who think they support women's right simply because they aren't doing anything they consider hostile. But they're not really contributing anything positive, providing any real support, or doing any real fighting on behalf of women.

At best, that's just standing back and letting other people do all the work. At worst, some of them make a hobby of sniping at feminists because they think they somehow do more to promote women's rights than feminists do (apparently by virtue of pure ego).

[AnotherGreenWorld]

128. Yeah. I just think some of the rhetoric on this thread

verges on the idea that all men hate and fear women. So I wanted to point out that there are at least A Few Good Men, maybe more than one would think.

[Katherine Brengle]

43. Amidst the battle cries of "You're irrational!" "Women are soooo emotional!"

It is an uphill battle, this being seen as a true human person thing.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

44. Awwwww That Was Really Cute.

I always love to read the creative fictional anecdotes about how some DU'ers are sexists, racists, homophobes etc, that always have no roots in actual reality. It's cute how the point tries to be made as if it were real, significant and systemic, even though the point has no legitimate basis and is only the product of trying to assassinate the characters of others who disagree with the ways in which you or others put forth argument. It really is quite humorous to read.

Can't help but wonder though: Do you even have any supporting evidence to support such a wildly fictional claim that "some people seem to think those rights should only exist in theory"? And if 'some people' in the next quote referenced DU'ers as well, any supporting evidence for the wild claim that "some people seem to think that women shouldn't succeed at using any of those rights to influence the political agenda, advance women's equality, raise "women's issues," or actually accomplish anything. Women are supposed to use their rights to agree with men."?

Don't be silly. No DU'ers think that women shouldn't have equal rights period. C'mon now. :silly:

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. Why The Melodrama? I Wasn't Even Responding To You. I Thought Your OP Was Fine.

Instead, I was responding to a poster who humorously put forth a false premise that there are DU'ers who don't support equal rights for women. I found it quite funny, since it is so laughably false LOL

But if you want to go and get all offended and stuff because of it, as if I harmed you somehow, then I can't stop ya. But my reply had nothing to do with you or your OP, it had to do with the false statements and premises of another poster within your thread. I thought your OP was fine.

[supernova]

55. Actually no,

it's not "laughably false."

There are people on DU, who call themselves "progressive" no less, but still maintain male superiority, or better yet, claim feminism "hurts" them and their rights. Yes, it's shocking I know.

You want examples? Oh threads about equal pay for equal work, sexual harassment, spousal abuse, equitable child care. There's always a contingent that shows up to say "The status quo is just fine. We don't need to do anything else." Or they try mightily to minimize the situation."It's not that big a deal." "I don't know why you're so worked up over this." "It's all in your pretty little head."

It's not cute. It's not funny. And it damn sure isn't welcome.

[ThomCat]

54. Right. You've never actually seen anything you would

qualify as prejudice. I have to wonder why you claim to support the fight against prejudice when you don't really think prejudice actually exists.
:eyes:

[Madspirit]

82. You are SO right Thom

I have not ONCE seen him admit that anyone here is sexist or racist or homophobic, etc. It's ludicrous.
Of course we all know that he is practically perfect in every way.
Lee

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

109. Show Me Someone Who Is. Ready, Set, GO!

(and do so with supporting evidence, not just by simply saying so, as if that makes something true somehow)

[Madspirit]

110. We're not allowed to call people out and you KNOW it

I guess we're all just liars and you're practically perfect in every way. Some psychotropic drug forces the women and gays here to make the claim and yet...we are all just lying. Dang.

Lee

[Madspirit]

113. ...and just fyi

Skinner would NEVER make such an absurd claim. That just because someone belongs to DU, all 106,000 of us, none are sexist, homophobic, racist or xenophobic.

Lee

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

117. You Realize How Laughable It Is To Claim There Are 106,000 Of Us, Right?

I can't take someone seriously when they don't have the perception enough to recognize that the 106,000 number has nothing to do whatsoever with how many members are currently on DU. It comes off as being really silly when someone tries to use it. Just thought you should know that.

And could some here be? Hell, who knows, maybe. I'm just saying from the posts I've read, from real and engaging DU'ers, I can't recall more than one poster who might have genuinely said things that would categorize them as such. But aside from that exception, all of the times I've ever seen someone called a sexist or homophobe here, including myself, has been when the person labeling them is being reactionary, knee jerk, and quite simply ignorant in their conclusion. Sure, there might always be one or two exceptions, but enough to make it worthy of discussion or statements made that make it appear as though it is more than exceptional? That's hogwash.

[Madspirit]

120. blah blah blah blah

Yup, we're all just a bunch of fucking liars OMC and you're practically perfect in every way.
Lee

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

122. No One Called You Or Them Liars.

Since we aren't talking about facts here, lying does not enter the equation. We are talking about opinions based on perceptions. That doesn't make them liars, it makes them simply having been guilty of having flawed, clouded or inaccurate perception.

[Madspirit]

125. *snerk*

:rofl:

[Scout]

157. so they aren't liars, but they are "guilty of having flawed, clouded or inaccurate perception" ....

and of course YOURS is the perfect, clear and accurate perception I suppose?

:rofl:

[Madspirit]

123. ...and it is funny

You REFUSE to acknowledge what most women and gays claim. ..but you're quite willing to imply ALL of us are liars. :rofl: So there are NO sexists at DU but evidently there are tons of liars.
Lee

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

129. Please, Read A Response Before You Continue Replying. It'll Save Us Time.

No one called you or anyone else liars. The issue is one of perception, not fact. The perception used in claiming these DU'ers are sexists or homophobes is flawed and of limited narrow mindsets. Just because you're wrong in your assessment, does not make you a liar. Get a grip please.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1540953&mesg_id=1544713

[Kingshakabobo]

191. According to OMC, there is plenty of anti-christian bigotry on DU.

Funny how he feels the need to rush to the defense of DUers when they are accused of sexism, homophobia etc.

But when they are accused of being anti-Christian? Well, THAT'S another story!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=253502#253767

OPERATIONMINDCRIME (1000+ posts) Tue Feb-20-07 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #13

24. Bigotry Is Bigotry. And Sarcasm Don't Cut It.

It wasn't lighthearted sarcasm. It was bitter sarcasm with intent and blatant negative reference to Christianity as a whole.

I know for certain that there are many Christians on this board who get frustrated at constantly seeing these types of remarks as if Christianity itself is wacko.

Fact is, it didn't need to be said. The comment easily could've been limited to just those who were guilty of extremism. This type of broad brush generalization, even with tones of sarcasm, would never fly if in reference to women, gays, minorities, etc.. We shouldn't tolerate it towards christians either.

[Madspirit]

192. Thank-you For This!

The only problem I see is that the person you refer to has absolutely no capability for self-reflection. NONE.

Fantastic post though.

Now just sit back and watch OUR posts get deleted. I guarantee it.

Lee

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

194. How DARE I Defend Against Bigotry. I Mean, Like, HOW DARE I!

You are too damn funny ya know that? Always with your childish 'gotcha' type cut and pastes that never end up amounting to anything.

There's not thing wrong about that post of mine nor contradictory. In fact, I'm a bit amused by your foolishness in posting it.

But you just keep on tryin to bring down the BIGGGGGGG BADDDDDDD OMCCCCCC ok? Someday, just maybe, justttttttt maybe, you'll provide something that actually, like, ya know, carries legitimacy in thwarting the BBOMC.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

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

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

126. Yup! There's That Knee Jerk Of Flawed Perception Reaction I'm Talkin About!

Yes thomcat, I'm a troll. You're so so wise and perceptive. Yup. You've nailed it. I'm a troll because I'm defending my fellow DU'ers from irrational and closed minded ignorant attacks claiming they are sexist and homophobes. Yup. I'm a troll. How amazingly brilliant of you. :rofl:

[Madspirit]

127. Sorry Thom ...You Are Right

"the ego that won't die" :rofl: :rofl:

Lee

[Madspirit]

130. I Have Noticed

I have over 200 emails about this issue and I have noticed most others are no longer engaging. I make a commitment to do the same. Thanks Thom.
Lee

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

131. So What Ever Happened To Providing Supporting Substance? You Dead In The Water Already?

Anyone with even half a brain can issue declarations with no substance or bearing in reality. It is something altogether different to have the ability to supply supporting evidence to the wild assertions. Until you do so, or until thomcat does so, your arguments are DOA and unsubstantiated. No snark, name calling, personal attacks or childish behavior can overcome that quite simple fact. :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

115. That's A Cop Out. Just Post The Quotes AND The Context. No Names Are Necessary.

If there's just ONE poster or even just TWO or something, that doesn't really make the argument very well. The statements were said as if there were enough here to warrant it becoming concerning, and definitely gave the impression of more than one or two. So finding examples from a multitude of posters should be rather simple. But their names aren't necessary. Just post the context and the content, without the identity. That should suffice.

[wicket]

88. Check your PM

:hi:

:yourock:

[OzarkDem]

114. Here's a good example of sexism

Did you know that until the early 1990's all breast cancer research was conducted on MEN only?

Scientists thought that women's bodies were just too complex what with all those hormones, etc. to conduct research on the people who actually get breast cancer - WOMEN.

It wasn't until those gol danged FEMINISTS went up on Capitol Hill and protested that things began to change.

Amazing, no? Imagine how much more we would know about breast cancer if research had been fully funded and conducted on women before then.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

118. Oh Absolutely. Even Now There Is Still Far Too Much Sexism In Our Society.

I wasn't debating that. I was referencing the claim that there were many here on DU who are.

[OzarkDem]

119. I can't speak for DU

but there's obviously a glass ceiling when it comes to women advancing in the Democratic party, both in leadership and elective office. The statistics bear that out.

[OzarkDem]

107. The Democratic Party is the party of women

Most Democratic voters are women. The GOP figured this out a long time ago and have spent the years since Reagan trying to lure women voters away or keep them from turning out to vote.

While not all women have the same values and views on public policy, the Democratic Party's policy strongly reflect women voters POV. In many ways, if you are a Democratic man, the political issues and POV you support often have come from women like Eleanor Roosevelt, Roslyn Carter and others.

To say that women shouldn't use their rights to influence the political agenda, particularly in the Democratic party is folly.

[Redneck Socialist]

20. But do you chew gum?

That's the important question. :evilgrin:

[supernova]

30. LOL!

I must remember to curtsey when I see him in the Lounge again. :silly:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

33. So I just read that link and...oy vey!

My mind reals at his arguments. First off, dontcha love the RW paradoxical view that, in order to fight Islam, we need more theocracy in our country, especially where the rights of women are concerned. So that we'll be more like....Islamic theocracies! Last time I checked, the women in Saudi Arabia couldn't vote. Is that his model for an ideal political situation?

It's that whole They Hate Us For Our Freedoms So We Need To Lose Some Of Our Freedoms thing. :crazy:

[supernova]

34. Isn't he a piece of work?

*whistles*

I love how he thinks "retradionalizing" our society would make everything all right again, because then war and statecraft would belong to MEN, in all caps.

[ThomCat]

37. Yes, because everything was so much better back then.

:eyes:

You have to really wonder about people who imagine "good old days" that never existed.

[supernova]

38. Because you know, we didn't

have all these problems back then, we weren't sliding into socialism because women weren't voting for it. :banghead:

It doesn't occur to him that we did have all these problems back then, they/we were just invisible to people like him. Out of sight means nonexistent in his head. :eyes:

[BlackVelvet04]

152. Check this statement out........

Part of the reason that I am so certain that the wheels will soon come off this country is women's suffrage. None of the socialist schemes of the left in the 20th century would have passed without it. None of the issues that face the West will be solved politically as long as security-conscious women have the right to vote. The source of the pressing issues we face is, in large part, women's suffrage. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, abortion and the resultant lack of American population increases--all of the things that are bankrupting the country would not be an issue if women of both sexes didn't vote for them.

Excuse me????? Let's look at where the federal tax dollars go:



Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,387 billion
MILITARY: 51% and $1,228 billion
NON-MILITARY: 49% and $1,159 billion

Yes, 51% to the military. Now is that really because women are security-conscious? Isn't it for the most part men screaming for more military to protect us from the evils of terrorists (and in the past communists).

And speaking of welfare, here are some 1995 figures of social welfare spending vs. corporate welfare spending:

Spending for corporate welfare programs outweighs
spending for low-income programs by more than
three to one: $167 billion to $51.7 billion
(source: Aid for Dependent Corporations, from the
Corporate Welfare Project and How Much Do We Spend
on Welfare?, from the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, FY 95 figures).http://www.eriposte.com/economy/tax/corporate_welfare.htm

Is it really women who generally support the corporate welfare that could much more honestly be said to be bankrupting the country than social welfare.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

162. But military spending is Important, and Manly!

I like to point out to people who hand me that tired line about "welfare cheats" to justify their support of the GOP that the greediest, laziest, and most piggish welfare recipients I have ever witnessed have been defense contractors. Trust me, I speak as a military veteran who saw the waste and fraud firsthand. Plus, they tend to be major league insecure, arrogant assholes. Ever see the Michael Douglas movie "Falling Down"? His portrayal of a typical defense contractor was spot-on. I used to report the ones on my base to the DOD for the shitloads of money they wasted, not that it did any good. I personally would rather see my tax dollars go to a poor mother than to some overpaid war cowboy from Halliburton.

[BlackVelvet04]

165. That's exactly it.....

it's MANLY. LOL Defense contractors are a boil on the ass of this country.

[Sapere aude]

45. If these guys really had to live in a world with only each other I'd be happy.

I wish there was a state for conservatives only. They deserve each other.

[Katherine Brengle]

52. They'd nuke us within a week.

[Lilith Velkor]

65. They'd die of radiation sickness in the attempt

Following safety protocols when handling plutonium is womanish risk-aversion dontcha know.

[supernova]

67. I shouldn't laugh

at that.

But there's a certain amount of crazy truth to it. :D :rofl:

[Madspirit]

66. k&r...Of Course...n/t

[cobalt1999]

68. "most keep these thoughts inside"

Thanks for telling me what I'm thinking. Jeez, I never knew what was my own thoughts were. One idiot writing some bullshit on the internet, is just that....one idiot. Why the broad brush assumption of what all men think..."inside, just beneath the surface".

For example, what if I told you what you were REALLY thinking, inside, just below the surface?

BTW, IMHO, there is still much work to be done to eliminate sexism and I hope it is done quickly before my daughters leave home.

[Katherine Brengle]

90. No one told you what you are thinking.

In order for your defensive attitude to be warranted, I would have had to say "everyone" eh?

If it doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you. Don't take it personally if you are not responsible.

It's not a broad brush accusation at all - the only people who should feel accused are those who are guilty of this behavior.

Don't sell yourself short by assuming you are one of them if you know you are not.

And I have the same hopes for your daughters, and for my own, and for the daughters of every human being on this earth.

[Breeze54]

74. Your OP made me cry! Literally! THANK YOU!!!

:hug: :hug: :hug:

:kick: & Recommended is a given! Of course I would.

That is WHY we are still fighting!!!!! Truth!

I'm not giving up!!

[wicket]

76. Howdy neighbor!

:hi:

:hug:

[Breeze54]

111. Hi there, wicket!

:hi:

:hug:

[Katherine Brengle]

91. :D

Glad to be of service!

[musette_sf]

108. K&R

and (hopefully not too off topic) i could just SCREAM when my "libertarian" husband keeps pushing Ron Paul on me. my standard response is "he thinks women are second-class citizens and not entitled to the same rights he has". the last few nights we've discussed this, he said "well, you're just going to have to get over that".

"over that"??????

he seems to think that equal rights for women is some kind of insignificant wedge issue.

and yes, i thought i had vetted him on his level of feminism prior to getting deeply involved. but.. well... i won't go on here, many of the women on this thread (and at least one man) know what i am talking about.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

169. Ron Paul is an MD. OB-Gyn for many years in Lake Jackson, TX.

Near Angleton, south of Houston. Lake Jackson is the Dow Chemical Plant in Freeport's company town. Right wing suburb.

Back in the 1970s I heard that he had a 14% mortality rate amongst the babies he delivered. He was a congressman then. I don't know if this is true but my first hubby was from Lake Jackson, and he told me that.

If he wants to take our rights away, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

[musette_sf]

186. oh yes, spent WAAAAY too much time

in Lake Jackson, driving the picturesque "This Way" and "That Way" thoroughfares...

i detest Paul, but at least his political aspirations keep him out of "sharing his (OB-GYN) love" with the women of South Texas. 14%?!?!?! any femicide / genocide / eugenics there, i wonder???

[Quantess]

112. What a despicable pig.

He's probably never been able to psychologically recover after a woman giggled at his small penis.

[lumberjack_jeff]

132. I still don't hate people, but I do hate ideas.

And I hate the idea that one should feel empowered to speak for the unarticulated views of the majority of anyone, particularly the views of the majority of the other gender.

From that perspective, and in that sense, I see nothing in this post to recommend it above the one to which you refer. Your oft-repeated insights on the state of mind of men are no less flawed than the rw nutcase's insights on the leadership fitness of women.

I'm getting tired of being splattered by the manure collected and stockpiled from random idiots on the internet and used in the broadest and most unjustified possible ways.

I don't buy the argument that 'if you're not that kind of man, then you don't need to be offended when I say ("most") men suck.' Gender reversal of this argument would get the universal condemnation that this one merits.

[Madspirit]

133. The Myth of Reverse Discrimination....n/t

[Madspirit]

134. ...because

How exactly did the OP hurt YOU? How does sexism hurt women? Which of the 42 million ways would you like first?

Lee

[Madspirit]

135. ...because what is SO telling

You're more offended by one sentence in the OP than by the whole foul and sexist diatribe against women. THAT is telling indeed.
Lee

[lumberjack_jeff]

137. No, I'm equally offended by both.

But DU is a place that I visit because I expect better.

[Madspirit]

141. Well now, that is funny

I saw no mention of you being offended by the other. None, in your original post. So telling...

Lee

[lumberjack_jeff]

147. What did you read? Clearly something other than what I wrote.

Did you not infer when I called him a "rw nutcase" and "random idiot" that I didn't agree?

Look, get past your stereotypes for just one minute and you might gain some insights.

[Madspirit]

149. hahaha...whew...hahaha

Okay, I concede, you said two little words, very generally, about a massive foul attack on women, except it was very general and just kind of a passing thing about rw pigs, nothing actually about sexism itself. Hey, what person here doesn't toss out the ol' "rw nutcase". You said NOTHING about the foul diatribe of the PIG, specifically... and then the entire rest of your post was whining and ranting about poor poor poor poor men. :rofl: :rofl:

I suggest:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1545261&mesg_id=1545261

...but as is said below, you won't even bother will you?

Off...off he goes, donning his cape...to fight for the rights of and against the oppression of...THE straight white man! ...off he goes... :rofl:

Lee

[lumberjack_jeff]

150. No, I'm off to fight bias. Period. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

136. Are you working from a definition of "discrimination" that is unfamiliar to the rest of us?

dis·crim·i·na·tion (dĭ-skrĭm'ə-nā'shən) pronunciation
n.

1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

Her post wasn't reverse discrimination, it was the real thing.

[Madspirit]

140. YOU are claiming reverse discrimination

There is no such thing. Go google "reverse discrimination" and go to some of the black sites or feminist sites. Learn something. Get back to me on that.
I am not talking about dictionary definitions. I am talking politics, sociology, psychology, behavioral sciences, etc. Really, google that term, follow the links. Learn something. Raise your consciousness past the point of just being defensive. Understand the rage. GET IT.

Lee

[lumberjack_jeff]

145. There you go again.

You are speaking for me. Badly.

I'm saying that the OP was reflective of a discriminative, biased and predjudical world view.

I agree with you, in a sense, the reverse of discrimination is perceived moral equality, and that's certainly not what the OP was trying to articulate.

[Katherine Brengle]

146. I doubt that will happen. Based on his posts so far, I refuse to engage. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

148. Prudent. n/t

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

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

[lumberjack_jeff]

166. When given the opportunity to oppose bias and predjudice; both.

The high ground is easy to defend.

You said that most men, specifically male DU'ers, ("I know, I know, he's a conservative right? He's not like you, so it doesn't matter, right? Wrong.") believe that women shouldn't be allowed to work or to vote or to have any meaningful role in society, and that the reason that we don't admit to this dark-ages viewpoint (that only you can see) is that we're too polite.

I have pointed out that this is an inherently bigoted, prejudicial view, not to mention a judgmental statement against an entire gender about which you are entirely ignorant.

"Asshat"? Fine. I'd have it no other way.

[Quantess]

173. Maybe you can just feel confident that you are a good man and a good person?

Maybe this statement is far too sensible, and not conducive to the argument you are looking for.

[lumberjack_jeff]

187. I do. But apparently it's combative to assert that I'm not unique. n/t

[Madspirit]

138. What is Amazing and SO Telling

The myth of reverse discrimination...

What is so sad and so telling is that two or three on this thread are more offended by one or two sentences in the OP than they are about the foul diatribe by the Pig. THAT is so incredible and so telling.

Lee

[gollygee]

139. But . . . but . . . but . . .

Won't somebody please think of the MEN?!!

They always seem to get the short end of the stick, don't they? Oh, how they have my pity.

[Madspirit]

142. Kinda like white folks or Christians

...always getting the short end of the stick...poor things. :cry:

Lee

[lumberjack_jeff]

143. What is amazing and so telling...

... is that there are only two or three on this board who will disagree with predjudice, bias and discrimination when it's wearing pumps.

[Madspirit]

144. Really...go google. ...n/t

[BlackVelvet04]

151. I think the question of equal rights

I have is who the hell are men to give rights to or take them away from women? Where did men ever get the idea that it was their right to confer or or withhold rights from women? Why do we even have this discussion and feel we have to justify having rights?

The answer to that question would be religion. My great grandmother belonged to a Native American tribe that was matriarchal and I guess I inherited some of that from her. I left the church when I was being taught to submit to men.

I sure hope that if there is a heaven that when some of these right wing assholes get there the first question they have to answer is "who the hell do you think you are?"

I would thank you for the link to that article but I believe my blood pressure has probably risen into the "I have a major headache" range and I feel like throwing up.

[Katherine Brengle]

159. EXACTLY - who the hell has the right to "grant" me "rights" ??? These rights should be

INHERENT.

And the very fact that we need to sit here and say that out loud is very telling.

[BlackVelvet04]

161. It makes my blood boil.

Maybe if Hillary is elected president we can have a discussion about whether or not we should take away the men's right to vote. Wonder how they would like that?

[Katherine Brengle]

163. I wouldn't count on Clinton for much...

I don't think she has any real interest in the destruction of patriarchy.

Of course, neither do any of the male candidates, so...

[BlackVelvet04]

164. At least it would be nice to see a woman in the white house

in some capacity other than "first Lady". Who the hell wants to be a lady? ;-)

[Katherine Brengle]

185. It really would.

I can't even imagine what that reality would really look like.

It's something I want very badly, but I can't bring myself to support a candidate based on gender alone, or even gender + a few other things, when there are better-suited candidates available at this time.

:(

[ismnotwasm]

153. Right on

Sometimes the worst places are academia or your middle class. Secure with the base of an education, the misogyny has them, and they won't let it go. Worse, they will try to justify it with Big Words and mumble jumble that has nothing to do with what is going on world wide with the status of women. They'll turn their backs on systems that others suffer from because they benefit from them. And justify it. I see that a lot on-line. When I discuss such things with men in real life--and believe me, I do-- they tend to be much more circumspect. Even the most misogynist male I know, one I don't agree with anything about, (he's a strange, freeper type, very smart though) knows when to draw the line. We've got into some very volatile discussions about a number of things. It's interesting. I'm not scary. I'm a very secure person, relatively "issue" free. I can't imagine why they don't want to speak their truth, although I suspect it's because I make pretty shrewd guesses about what their "truth" entails.



Fight we must and fight we will, no shame about it at all.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

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

[AnotherGreenWorld]

184. And this is based on what? I know for myself that's not true.

[Katherine Brengle]

193. What'd we miss?

I thought this thread was dead - care to fill me on why some asshat resurrected it?

:D

[Kingshakabobo]

195. Yeah, what did we miss? n/t