HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » RadFeminists are making i...

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 07:45 PM

RadFeminists are making it difficult for the Democratic party to fight the GOP's attack on women

What is increasingly obvious is that the GOP is attacking women's rights in a variety of ways and levels of government. Unfortunately, it appears there is little to slow down their agenda. But, the majority of the registered voters in the United States are female. So, what is happening? Is it social conditioning by a patriarchal society or is there much more?

In my opinion it all boils down to the message being put forth. Many have acknowledged the GOP are far better at using slogans or messages that are simple, to the point, and which can resonate with everyday voters. Their language can be shocking, but at the end of the day they simply go back to fundamental basics. Family, life, etc which carries different subtle meanings to each individual but on a greater whole the same understanding.

It is quite apparent the majority of female registered voters are buying in to what the GOP is saying. But why? I firmly believe when extreme rhetoric or hyperbole is used that is pretty much turns people off. Shock jocks like Howard Stern and Limbaugh do it for ratings, and there are those that tune in to find out what other outrageous things either will say. But at the end of the day, you can listen only so much to such extreme provocative language. There is a saturation effect where you start to tune out what is being said. Until the RadFems tone down their malicious, misandrist rhetoric, we will lose the majority of female registered voters in the United States, and start to divide the male members of the Democratic party (exactly what the GOP wants as their entire playbook is about division not unity). The GOP is winning, because they clearly understand uniform messaging compared to the Democratic party.

The only way to counter this is with calmed reason, logical arguments, and highly scrutinized scientific data. This is why when it comes to how the Obama administration has traversed topics regarding female equality they have done a sterling job. But it is quite apparent they still have much more work to do. I suspect female voters will turn out for Obama, but will it be enough? I don't know, but using extreme rhetoric will turn them off from voting in November.

Thank you for your time.

385 replies, 40432 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 385 replies Author Time Post
Reply RadFeminists are making it difficult for the Democratic party to fight the GOP's attack on women (Original post)
Harmony Blue Jun 2012 OP
Arugula Latte Jun 2012 #1
scarletwoman Jun 2012 #5
ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #20
seabeyond Jun 2012 #43
ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #44
seabeyond Jun 2012 #52
sufrommich Jun 2012 #50
seabeyond Jun 2012 #53
sufrommich Jun 2012 #62
seabeyond Jun 2012 #67
ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #84
seabeyond Jun 2012 #88
ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #91
ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #54
sufrommich Jun 2012 #65
ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #83
Hatchling Jun 2012 #379
undeterred Jun 2012 #125
crunch60 Jun 2012 #153
undeterred Jun 2012 #157
crunch60 Jun 2012 #172
eridani Jun 2012 #198
dana_b Jun 2012 #142
Zalatix Jun 2012 #174
marybourg Jun 2012 #2
ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #21
RadiationTherapy Jun 2012 #3
liberal N proud Jun 2012 #4
Harmony Blue Jun 2012 #258
seabeyond Jun 2012 #259
liberal N proud Jun 2012 #260
Scout Jun 2012 #6
HockeyMom Jun 2012 #7
DURHAM D Jun 2012 #9
HockeyMom Jun 2012 #16
shcrane71 Jun 2012 #256
DURHAM D Jun 2012 #8
Iggo Jun 2012 #357
stranger81 Jun 2012 #10
scarletwoman Jun 2012 #11
ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #23
Posteritatis Jun 2012 #244
ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #251
redqueen Jun 2012 #253
seabeyond Jun 2012 #257
dionysus Jun 2012 #36
seabeyond Jun 2012 #45
kiranon Jun 2012 #12
Scootaloo Jun 2012 #13
me b zola Jun 2012 #14
LineLineReply +
ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #25
sufrommich Jun 2012 #37
crunch60 Jun 2012 #74
kestrel91316 Jun 2012 #103
EFerrari Jun 2012 #143
redqueen Jun 2012 #165
CTyankee Jun 2012 #15
Archae Jun 2012 #17
ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #27
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #28
DURHAM D Jun 2012 #29
seabeyond Jun 2012 #55
4th law of robotics Jun 2012 #30
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #40
ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #80
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #87
ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #90
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #94
ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #96
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #102
seabeyond Jun 2012 #60
4th law of robotics Jun 2012 #290
sufrommich Jun 2012 #34
Archae Jun 2012 #51
sufrommich Jun 2012 #58
Archae Jun 2012 #69
ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #79
seabeyond Jun 2012 #81
ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #89
Zalatix Jun 2012 #179
Odin2005 Jun 2012 #42
seabeyond Jun 2012 #64
Odin2005 Jun 2012 #137
seabeyond Jun 2012 #48
Archae Jun 2012 #56
seabeyond Jun 2012 #68
Archae Jun 2012 #72
seabeyond Jun 2012 #77
wickerwoman Jun 2012 #95
kestrel91316 Jun 2012 #109
Harmony Blue Jun 2012 #148
seabeyond Jun 2012 #150
Harmony Blue Jun 2012 #272
seabeyond Jun 2012 #274
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #151
DURHAM D Jun 2012 #155
Scootaloo Jun 2012 #160
seabeyond Jun 2012 #163
cyberswede Jun 2012 #162
Scootaloo Jun 2012 #166
Spider Jerusalem Jun 2012 #195
seabeyond Jun 2012 #232
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #18
seabeyond Jun 2012 #71
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #75
seabeyond Jun 2012 #78
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #92
seabeyond Jun 2012 #101
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #106
seabeyond Jun 2012 #108
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #114
seabeyond Jun 2012 #118
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #135
seabeyond Jun 2012 #139
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #144
seabeyond Jun 2012 #146
Iggo Jun 2012 #385
Solly Mack Jun 2012 #19
CJCRANE Jun 2012 #22
EFerrari Jun 2012 #24
steve2470 Jun 2012 #26
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #38
steve2470 Jun 2012 #39
hfojvt Jun 2012 #31
Odin2005 Jun 2012 #32
dionysus Jun 2012 #33
CTyankee Jun 2012 #35
ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #47
CTyankee Jun 2012 #63
DURHAM D Jun 2012 #70
seabeyond Jun 2012 #76
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #98
seabeyond Jun 2012 #104
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #112
seabeyond Jun 2012 #121
seabeyond Jun 2012 #41
Make7 Jun 2012 #46
stevenleser Jun 2012 #49
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #66
stevenleser Jun 2012 #73
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #81
stevenleser Jun 2012 #359
DURHAM D Jun 2012 #116
stevenleser Jun 2012 #349
GarroHorus Jun 2012 #57
crunch60 Jun 2012 #59
JHB Jun 2012 #61
KamaAina Jun 2012 #85
seabeyond Jun 2012 #86
ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #93
seabeyond Jun 2012 #105
undeterred Jun 2012 #97
kestrel91316 Jun 2012 #99
seabeyond Jun 2012 #110
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #128
seabeyond Jun 2012 #130
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #147
seabeyond Jun 2012 #149
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #156
seabeyond Jun 2012 #158
DURHAM D Jun 2012 #152
seabeyond Jun 2012 #154
redqueen Jun 2012 #170
MadrasT Jun 2012 #204
RainDog Jun 2012 #269
boston bean Jun 2012 #303
RainDog Jun 2012 #306
boston bean Jun 2012 #308
RainDog Jun 2012 #316
boston bean Jun 2012 #324
RainDog Jun 2012 #329
boston bean Jun 2012 #331
RainDog Jun 2012 #332
boston bean Jun 2012 #347
seabeyond Jun 2012 #334
seabeyond Jun 2012 #309
RainDog Jun 2012 #325
seabeyond Jun 2012 #328
RainDog Jun 2012 #333
seabeyond Jun 2012 #335
RainDog Jun 2012 #338
seabeyond Jun 2012 #339
RainDog Jun 2012 #341
seabeyond Jun 2012 #342
RainDog Jun 2012 #343
RainDog Jun 2012 #381
RainDog Jun 2012 #367
RainDog Jun 2012 #191
boston bean Jun 2012 #218
RainDog Jun 2012 #266
boston bean Jun 2012 #267
RainDog Jun 2012 #271
seabeyond Jun 2012 #276
boston bean Jun 2012 #284
RainDog Jun 2012 #305
hifiguy Jun 2012 #296
RainDog Jun 2012 #314
obamanut2012 Jun 2012 #230
redqueen Jun 2012 #237
RainDog Jun 2012 #277
RainDog Jun 2012 #279
seabeyond Jun 2012 #281
RainDog Jun 2012 #285
redqueen Jun 2012 #287
RainDog Jun 2012 #310
seabeyond Jun 2012 #288
RainDog Jun 2012 #312
seabeyond Jun 2012 #317
RainDog Jun 2012 #320
seabeyond Jun 2012 #326
RainDog Jun 2012 #330
seabeyond Jun 2012 #336
RainDog Jun 2012 #344
hifiguy Jun 2012 #337
RainDog Jun 2012 #340
hifiguy Jun 2012 #348
seabeyond Jun 2012 #350
redqueen Jun 2012 #351
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #100
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2012 #107
seabeyond Jun 2012 #111
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2012 #115
seabeyond Jun 2012 #124
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #119
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2012 #126
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #131
Ian David Jun 2012 #113
sufrommich Jun 2012 #123
Ian David Jun 2012 #140
LineLineReply .
seabeyond Jun 2012 #127
Scootaloo Jun 2012 #117
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #120
Scootaloo Jun 2012 #129
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #133
seabeyond Jun 2012 #132
aikoaiko Jun 2012 #122
MichiganVote Jun 2012 #134
mmonk Jun 2012 #136
GeorgeGist Jun 2012 #138
fascisthunter Jun 2012 #141
frogmarch Jun 2012 #145
MrTwister Jun 2012 #159
cyberswede Jun 2012 #161
seabeyond Jun 2012 #164
Starry Messenger Jun 2012 #178
maddezmom Jun 2012 #197
Posteritatis Jun 2012 #245
NBachers Jun 2012 #167
seabeyond Jun 2012 #171
Sen. Walter Sobchak Jun 2012 #168
DURHAM D Jun 2012 #176
Sen. Walter Sobchak Jun 2012 #181
DURHAM D Jun 2012 #187
Sen. Walter Sobchak Jun 2012 #189
boston bean Jun 2012 #209
Sen. Walter Sobchak Jun 2012 #261
DURHAM D Jun 2012 #211
redqueen Jun 2012 #235
Sen. Walter Sobchak Jun 2012 #262
muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #249
Sen. Walter Sobchak Jun 2012 #315
seabeyond Jun 2012 #319
marybourg Jun 2012 #180
seabeyond Jun 2012 #183
Sen. Walter Sobchak Jun 2012 #185
DURHAM D Jun 2012 #188
seabeyond Jun 2012 #234
Zalatix Jun 2012 #169
Egalitarian Thug Jun 2012 #177
Posteritatis Jun 2012 #246
shugah Jun 2012 #173
Warren DeMontague Jun 2012 #175
Egalitarian Thug Jun 2012 #182
Warren DeMontague Jun 2012 #201
Egalitarian Thug Jun 2012 #321
Warren DeMontague Jun 2012 #327
ibegurpard Jun 2012 #184
GObamaGO Jun 2012 #186
MH1 Jun 2012 #247
Major Nikon Jun 2012 #190
me b zola Jun 2012 #194
Major Nikon Jun 2012 #196
Harmony Blue Jun 2012 #203
Major Nikon Jun 2012 #207
boston bean Jun 2012 #208
Major Nikon Jun 2012 #212
boston bean Jun 2012 #213
Major Nikon Jun 2012 #219
boston bean Jun 2012 #221
Major Nikon Jun 2012 #226
boston bean Jun 2012 #228
redqueen Jun 2012 #240
seabeyond Jun 2012 #248
seabeyond Jun 2012 #250
DURHAM D Jun 2012 #217
Major Nikon Jun 2012 #223
DURHAM D Jun 2012 #227
Major Nikon Jun 2012 #231
seabeyond Jun 2012 #255
Major Nikon Jun 2012 #283
seabeyond Jun 2012 #292
Major Nikon Jun 2012 #374
seabeyond Jun 2012 #377
sufrommich Jun 2012 #210
boston bean Jun 2012 #215
sufrommich Jun 2012 #222
redqueen Jun 2012 #241
JHB Jun 2012 #229
seabeyond Jun 2012 #238
seabeyond Jun 2012 #236
Major Nikon Jun 2012 #291
redqueen Jun 2012 #293
Major Nikon Jun 2012 #300
seabeyond Jun 2012 #302
Major Nikon Jun 2012 #313
seabeyond Jun 2012 #322
seabeyond Jun 2012 #323
seabeyond Jun 2012 #295
ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #252
Major Nikon Jun 2012 #294
seabeyond Jun 2012 #297
Aerows Jun 2012 #192
Quantess Jun 2012 #193
eShirl Jun 2012 #199
REP Jun 2012 #200
quaker bill Jun 2012 #202
Harmony Blue Jun 2012 #205
trumad Jun 2012 #206
TBF Jun 2012 #216
DURHAM D Jun 2012 #220
quaker bill Jun 2012 #224
redqueen Jun 2012 #243
seabeyond Jun 2012 #254
redqueen Jun 2012 #264
stevenleser Jun 2012 #355
woo me with science Jun 2012 #214
KG Jun 2012 #225
DURHAM D Jun 2012 #233
Cerridwen Jun 2012 #242
DURHAM D Jun 2012 #307
seabeyond Jun 2012 #311
Honeycombe8 Jun 2012 #239
fishwax Jun 2012 #263
muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #265
seabeyond Jun 2012 #268
RainDog Jun 2012 #280
seabeyond Jun 2012 #298
Solly Mack Jun 2012 #275
ljm2002 Jun 2012 #270
spanone Jun 2012 #273
lunatica Jun 2012 #278
CrispyQ Jun 2012 #282
hifiguy Jun 2012 #286
redqueen Jun 2012 #289
seabeyond Jun 2012 #299
redqueen Jun 2012 #301
seabeyond Jun 2012 #304
hifiguy Jun 2012 #318
Gormy Cuss Jun 2012 #345
seabeyond Jun 2012 #346
Post removed Jun 2012 #354
redqueen Jun 2012 #356
seabeyond Jun 2012 #358
sufrommich Jun 2012 #360
seabeyond Jun 2012 #361
hlthe2b Jun 2012 #369
DURHAM D Jun 2012 #370
demmiblue Jun 2012 #372
seabeyond Jun 2012 #373
demmiblue Jun 2012 #375
seabeyond Jun 2012 #378
Gormy Cuss Jun 2012 #380
seabeyond Jun 2012 #382
Gormy Cuss Jun 2012 #383
seabeyond Jun 2012 #384
Prism Jun 2012 #352
seabeyond Jun 2012 #353
DURHAM D Jun 2012 #363
RainDog Jun 2012 #365
footinmouth Jun 2012 #362
seabeyond Jun 2012 #364
Iggo Jun 2012 #366
Dash87 Jun 2012 #368
hatrack Jun 2012 #371
Iggo Jun 2012 #376

Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 07:46 PM

1. RadFems? What are you talking about?

 

Who are these RadFems who get so much airtime on U.S. media that they are turning people off in droves? I must have missed that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arugula Latte (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 07:57 PM

5. What you said! I read this OP and thought WTF? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:09 PM

20. What you said! I read this OP and thought WTF? (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManyShadesOf (Reply #20)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:27 PM

43. What you said! I read this OP and thought WTF?. ya, not really. more, i got his #

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #43)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:29 PM

44. where'd he go?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManyShadesOf (Reply #44)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:33 PM

52. i have already run into this poster in a game thread earlier today. divisive is women speaking out.

 

it was all so stupid, this is a poster i dont even try to discuss, let alone reasoned and logical. so far beyond logical.

you seeing those mean old radfems all over the place shouting those dems down?

run baby, run, is right.

but, it is an example of what women face. and that is sobering

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #43)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:33 PM

50. We also have 2 DUers who personally know

women who want to kill all men and keep their testicles in jars. What are the freakin' odds of that?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #50)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:34 PM

53. i saw one. ALL the women in a lifetime i talk to and never a word. yes they know a few. simply

 

unbelievable. literally

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #53)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:37 PM

62. Me neither! I feel like we've missed

something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #62)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:39 PM

67. ya know. seeing how i scour the net to find topics to post, you would think i would run into ONE

 

this is probably the REASONED and calm LOGICAL conversation the OP was looking for. lmfao.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #67)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:54 PM

84. well maybe it's on a Need To Know basis for those

 

in the Inner Scrotum

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManyShadesOf (Reply #84)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:55 PM

88. that is right, maybe it is not shared with those of us that DON'T have. ya never know. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #88)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:59 PM

91. it's so hard

 

to anticipate other peoples PARANOIA

But that fear is understandable, cuz men are pretty connected to their balls

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #50)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:35 PM

54. wait wait

 

I thought the testes were kept alive for milking

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManyShadesOf (Reply #54)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:38 PM

65. In a jar!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #65)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:52 PM

83. oh

 

I pictured them sitting there in a petri dish, waiting for feeding time ..........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManyShadesOf (Reply #83)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 11:13 PM

379. Eeewwww!

Who needs to keep icky old testes around when there's always partheogenisis?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/alternative-cloning.html

Just need to work on it for a while.


Just kidding about the partheogenis part. It would be a very boring world if every one was an exact duplicate of their mother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #50)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:30 PM

125. The plan is to keep them only until they have a good recipe and a marketing plan -

then open a chain of restaurants called the Oyster Garden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to undeterred (Reply #125)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:35 PM

153. Cooking With Balls: World's first testicle recipe book

 

Here's a recipe book for ya...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3121465/Cooking-With-Balls-Worlds-first-testicle-recipe-book.html

I cooked these tasty goodies when I lived in Argentina, yum, a real delicacy! Not fun to clean though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crunch60 (Reply #153)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:47 PM

157. Do they have a recipe for Schweddy Balls?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to undeterred (Reply #157)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:26 AM

172. Yep, and one for BBQ rocky mountain oysters on a stick. Could be sold at football games.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #50)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 06:07 AM

198. I actually know a guy who has his left testicle in a jar on his desk

When it was removed, it was mostly taken over by tumor cells, and he was really lucky it hadn't gotten any further than that. I told him to just be thankful for bilateral synmetry. There are very few men who could say "I'd give my left nut for that" and be perfectly serious. (Although he'll probably keep it just to remind him of the important things in life, like surviving.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arugula Latte (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:02 PM

142. the first thing that came to my mind

after reading the OP (I had to RE-read some of it).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arugula Latte (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:32 AM

174. RadFems are this new enemy you encounter in Fallout New Vegas.

 

You can recruit one as a ghoulfriend in your war against Caesar's Legion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 07:55 PM

2. Better at using slogans that "are

simple and to the point"? What they are better at is LYING!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marybourg (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:10 PM

21. that's it

 

"Their language can be shocking, but at the end of the day they simply go back to fundamental basics."

No, they lie.

"The GOP is winning, because they clearly understand uniform messaging compared to the Democratic party."

No, they lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 07:56 PM

3. "Until the RadFems tone down their malicious, misandrist rhetoric," Nonsense.

No. This is, again, conforming one's revolution to avoid discomfiting the status quo/default status of things. Also, I am interested in what percentage of feminist rhetoric is "radical" by your estimation and what effective, non-radical rhetoric would sound like to you. Lastly, there will always be radicals; always be fringe members of a movement and they have their roles as such. I disagree wholeheartedly with your implication, even while, at the same time, understanding that image and PR is important for any movement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 07:57 PM

4. Can you back up the women supporting the GOP?

I have not seen any data supporting that. I also have not seen any radical feminist rhetoric from the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 11:19 AM

258. Republicans have gained power throughout the states in the Union

and are pushing their anti-women agenda through what more evidence do you need? Females outnumber male registered voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #258)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 11:22 AM

259. maybe the women are buying into the "family value" issue cause of the pornification of our women?

 

at least we hear the talk of this. your radfem theory? not so much. not at all. but, what the fuck.

you talk about calm logical, yet, your post has NO logic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #258)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 11:49 AM

260. Ok, but where do get women are supporting the GOP more than the Democrats?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 07:58 PM

6. so you are saying that the "RadFems" have the Democrats' balls?

what RadFems? what exactly have the Dems even tried to do to fight against the war on women?

you're saying that the American people are so bigoted, that even though it is the right thing to do, they won't do it because the "RadFems" suggested it? right? "well, we'd be on your side if you were NICER to us ... but even though it's the right thing to do, we're not going to do it because you women aren't nice and feminine."

got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 07:58 PM

7. Younger women take a lot for granted

You don't know what you've got, til it's gone, as that old song said. We have to educate them on what it was like, and how much worse it can be.

My lesbian daughter gets it, how can she not? Yet, she will fight for all her sisters too. Unfortunately, her straight, married sister doesn't get it, but if these men get their way, even being straight and married will not mean she is free either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #7)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:00 PM

9. So, what does this have to do with Obama's poll numbers?

I don't understand your comment in the context of this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:04 PM

16. They don't understand the War on Women

and that it's the REPUBLICANS doing it, NOT Obama. Obama needs to gets this message across to women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 11:04 AM

256. The lesbian daughter, if partnered, will have to take that .77 : 1.00 ration times two.

I was once a women's festival where we were being trained to work a booth taking money. A young woman asked, "If someone wants change for $100.00, do we have that?" Numerous women laughed, and an older woman explained that women don't have money. We'd be lucky to make sales.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 07:59 PM

8. In your fantasy world who exactly are the "RadFems" and

where can I hear their message?

I think you took a wrong turn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #8)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 07:00 PM

357. ^^^This^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:01 PM

10. I think you should go back on the meds.

Just my two cents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:02 PM

11. Apparently you don't see the irony in using a right wing term like "RadFems" to exhort the left to

be careful with their rhetoric.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Reply #11)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:12 PM

23. the head it spins

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManyShadesOf (Reply #23)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:26 AM

244. Mine just kind of shakes in a depressed manner.

I don't get what's with the pile of threads handwringing about The Menace That Is Feminism here in the last week or so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #244)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:52 AM

251. It has something to do with

 

the fact that the country is bankrupt, the illusions are fading, the election is coming ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #244)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:58 AM

253. Complaints about anti-woman slurs, objectifying comments, and other offensive, bigoted behavior

seem to have enraged those who prefer the status quo, where they can call some women bitches, they can talk about women as if they are nothing but sexual conquests, and as if sharing sexualized images of women was appropriate for any and all occasions.

Somehow I doubt their rage will dissuade anyone from calling out these things, despite the insults, mockery, smearing, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #253)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 11:11 AM

257. +1.

 

i think there is one very big factor to. but, i will keep it to myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Reply #11)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:20 PM

36. i'm surprised he didnt say "feminazi" ala pillbaugh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #36)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:30 PM

45. but he got hysterical and calm/reasoned in there. lol. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:02 PM

12. Need to name names because don't know any radfeminists turning off other women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:02 PM

13. Maybe if you stop BELIEVING Rush Limbaugh's bullshit, that'll help.

 

"Until the RadFems tone down their malicious, misandrist rhetoric"

Do you even have any idea what the fuck you're talking about? Becuase I'll be honest I haven't got a damned clue what your gibber-speak is trying to communicate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:03 PM

14. Vagina!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:12 PM

25. +

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:20 PM

37. VAGINA,VAGINA,VAGINA !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #37)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:45 PM

74. Get use to the shock! VAGINA, VAGINA, VAGINA......PENIS, PENIS

 

PENIS.... See, once you say it a few times, it's not to hard..to listen to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:11 PM

103. VAGINA!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:02 PM

143. Lmao

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 11:53 PM

165. Thank you so much...

for that laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:03 PM

15. Totally ridiculous. Poster has an ulterior motive: that of tearing down

the message of equal pay for equal work and a level playing field in the workforce.

It is obvious. The poster does not "really" offer an alternative "argument" for women's rights. That remains mysterious. I guess the poster doesn't really understand what the argument is all about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:06 PM

17. I met a few women who are like this.

One of them wanted to keep testicles alive in a lab, just for the sperm.

Then eliminate *ALL* men.

I said "That sounds much like Nazi Germany and the Jews."

Did I get yelled at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:13 PM

27. Like on the Simpsons?

 

"One of them wanted to keep testicles alive in a lab, just for the sperm" or was that Futurama?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:14 PM

28. So have I. They're routinely ultra-conservative

and damned pissed about being second class.

Most feminists, of the varying types, usually go through cycles of grief. A few spend an inordinate amount of time in "rage." Many (most?) move past it until...the next time they're smacked in the face with someone wanting to kill them. Then the cycle starts again.

We had a joke (think gallows humor) about the cycle we all seemed to go through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:15 PM

29. Sure you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #29)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:35 PM

55. +1. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:16 PM

30. That's pretty messed up

 

even the most sexist male-chauvinist doesn't fantasize about exterminating the entire female gender.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #30)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:25 PM

40. Nope. Just those who don't STFU and swallow.

Progress for men will not be gained by debate, reason or typical channels of grievance available to segments of the population that the world actually gives a damn about. The progress we need will only be realized by inflicting enough pain on the agents of hate, in public view, that it literally shocks society out of its current coma.


Link: http://manboobz.com/2012/03/04/mras-the-way-to-defeat-feminism-is-not-through-debate-but-by-inflicting-pain-on-feminists/

More fun and enlightening information at the link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #40)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:51 PM

80. oh lord

 

who benefits from this insanity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManyShadesOf (Reply #80)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:55 PM

87. That which we metaphorically call the 1%.

I say metaphorically because I keep hoping people will move beyond the $$$$$signs and notice it's a "value" system and not just the $$$$$.

If you keep the ants scurrying to rebuild the ant-hill...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #87)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:57 PM

90. Great point

 

The value placed on people!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManyShadesOf (Reply #90)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:00 PM

94. Human Capital. That's what we are now.

It went from personnel to human resources to human capital.

They don't even try to hide it any more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #94)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:02 PM

96. It's almost as if they are

 

homicidal maniacs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManyShadesOf (Reply #96)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:10 PM

102. Psychopaths? Sociopaths?

Presuming 'sane' means pro-survival, I'd argue un-sane.

Regardless of what you call it, we honor and worship it here in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #30)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:36 PM

60. and then i have a bridge in brooklyn, oh wait.... it is in az. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #60)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:59 PM

290. I see no reason not to believe this

 

there are plenty of unhinged people out there. Feminists are not immune from insanity and hate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:18 PM

34. Wow ,I was just on the jury for this and

one of the jurist told the same story:

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:13 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I've personally MET women who are radical feminists, one I met wants to eliminate *ALL* men.

She would have testicles artificially grown for the semen.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: We don't need the whiny alert. Battle with your ideas.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Four posters have engaged the OP in debate, I suggest the alerter do the same and stop frivolous alerts.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: This anti feminist shit on DU has got to stop!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Seems incoherent. Beyond the right-wing sounding talk of "radical feminists," I don't see an issue. Certainly not enough of an issue to ban the statement.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Radfems? Who might those be? No, thanks.

What are the odds that both of you have actually known women who wanted to kill men and grow testicles? I'd say slim to none. It sounds like one of those right wing memes that you find in an email.



I was juror # 4.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #34)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:33 PM

51. That was me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #51)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:36 PM

58. So you've "met a few women" who want

to kill all men and grow testicles? Do tell, how do you know them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #58)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:41 PM

69. One who said that, she wanted to keep testicles alive in a lab.

Face it, some people have really strange or awful beliefs.

Some "Christians" want to kill Jews, gays, Muslims, etc.

Some "Muslims" want to kill Jews, gays, Christians, etc.

Some "Jews" want to kill gays, Muslims, Christians, etc.

Some men want women only as slaves.

Some women want men only as slaves.

And so on...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #69)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:50 PM

79. she was fuckin with you

 

that's ridickulous

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManyShadesOf (Reply #79)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:52 PM

81. .......

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #81)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:56 PM

89. yeah

 

if anyone ever said this ONE of us would know about the Evil Plot

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #69)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:02 AM

179. Look, there are extremists in every group.

 

Maureen Dowd wrote a book questioning whether men are even necessary. I personally would love to see her get slapped by Karma for her war of words against men. But she pales in comparison to the misogynist extremists right now who are, unlike Maureen Dowd, waging a real, LEGISLATIVE WAR on women. They deserve far worse, as in things that I can't post here for fear of the FBI coming down on my ass.

Radical feminists are doing no harm at all to the cause of equality. It's the GOP who is doing that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:26 PM

42. Cool story, Bro!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #42)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:38 PM

64. lol, you actually made me laugh out loud. lol. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #64)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:49 PM

137. You're welcome!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:31 PM

48. all the women, in all the world that i talk to i have never heard one even come close to making

 

a suggestion like this

and you know a few? wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #48)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:35 PM

56. VERY few.

They do exist. Just as there are men who want to bring back slavery, only this time for just women.

Every year I read about some guy who's been arrested keeping sex slaves.
(Or he dies in a shootout or by killing himself.)

The point is these are rare and terrible aberrations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #56)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:41 PM

68. then why do we even care about them. and how drunk were they. had they just had the shit kick out

 

of them????

cause never. i have never heard anything like this. and as i said above, while we are laughing at this (sorry, now i feel a bit bad), all the scouring of the net for feminist articles i have not heard it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #68)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:42 PM

72. I'm sure if you dug deep enough, you'd find one.

Hey, I saw the "Timecube" once...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #72)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:48 PM

77. omg.... if i dig deep enough, and spend enough time, i MIGHT find some woman say something

 

really stupid. lol

no thanks....

i think i will let it go. gave me a laugh, and was fun to play with. thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #56)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:00 PM

95. Yes they exist,

but the OP is arguing that they are influential voice in American politics to the point that the mainstream is rejecting feminism because of them. This is clearly bullshit.

By pointing to the 1 in a million example of an unhinged person who calls herself a feminist instead of joining in rejecting the obviously ludicrous premise of the OP, you appear to be endorsing said ludicrous premise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #56)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:15 PM

109. I've heard this sort of thing, too. But it was clearly hyperbole/tongue-in-cheek.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:22 PM

148. They exist as I too have encountered them

One of guest panelists was combative that a man was taking a Woman's studies class and suggested I was a spy working for maintaining the repressive patriarchal system. She also suggested that the only way to win was to inflict physical pain against men with war. She argued men are by nature ultra aggressive and this aggression must be met with more aggression.

Militant and Radical feminists are similar, but not the same. Militant in my opinion are more like activists or use the means of protest to voice awareness. There is overlap between Militant and Rad Feminists, but there are differences. Liberal feminists tend to be more openly accepted by society compared to Militant and Rad Fems.

Rad Fems oppose pornography which is why they are not received well by society as a whole. Human beings are visual, so the RadFem view point of pornography = violence simply doesn't resonate with the average man or woman in American society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #148)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:27 PM

150. it is all about the porn..... LEAVE MY PORN ALONE

 



knew it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #150)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:33 PM

272. Actually pornography is considered an art form

and it has been around since the time of Ancient Greece.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #272)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:34 PM

274. bah hahahahahahah

 



have a good day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #148)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:27 PM

151. Welcome back.

I know you.

You showed up in my class and wanted to "keep the feminists honest". Because without a man around to tell us what we should think, feel, know, we were just lost in the woods.

Then of course, there were those who used 19th century "science" to tell us we were just a glob of hormones.

Heaven forfend a woman would say to a man what men have been saying to women for millenia.

Of course she argued "men are by nature ultra aggressive and this aggression must be met with more aggression." It's the justification for militarism world-wide.

Sucks when that's pointed out, doesn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #148)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:36 PM

155. Where and when did you take this "Woman's studies" class?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #148)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 11:29 PM

160. Okay, you've met a crazy man-hating woman

 

Out of how many women you've met in your life? Is your sample size really so small that this one crazy lady sets your definitions?

No, I'm sure it's not. I'm also certain that pretty much every woman you've met is a feminist to some degree. Yet you allow the crazy one to set the standard you judge by.

I'm... not even going to bother explaining what makes porn violent to you. Suffice it to say that an industry that revolves around intentional dehumanization of its workers isn't scoring high marks on ethics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #160)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 11:45 PM

163. or he was a smart ass, cocky student challenging the woman professor thru out her class

 

cause he knows all and she is a mere woman and does not know shit. and he presented what really happened in an unfair manner.

really, we do not know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #148)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 11:41 PM

162. "Rad Fems oppose pornography which is why they are not received well by society as a whole"

I amend my earlier post.

*This* is the stupidest fucking post I've ever read on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyberswede (Reply #162)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:03 AM

166. Didn't you know that brazzers.com is the great social litmus test of our age?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #148)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 04:33 AM

195. I'm sorry, that's absurd and nonsensical

you have a pretty caricatured idea of feminism, it seems like, and a pretty caricatured idea of what constitutes a "radical feminist". Pornography...or at least, most mainstream pornography...objectifies and degrades women. I don't really think that's something that an objective and rational observer could deny (assuming one could find an objective, rational observer). Mainstream pornography is all about the male gaze and male fantasies. Also I think you'll find that when it comes to eroticism and arousal women are probably significantly less influenced by purely visual stimuli than men (sales figures for porn films vs erotic fiction, by gender, would, I'm sure, back this up).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #195)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 09:41 AM

232. New brain research challenges the myth that men are more visual than women.

 

It is considered an almost forgone conclusion across research disciplines, among pop psychologists of all stripes, and in the general population that men are more “visual” than women when it comes to the way they get turned on. Men, we’re told, are visually aroused, whereas women just need a good sense of humor, and possibly a strong jaw, and they're on board.

This misguided, but pervasive belief can be linked to a host of other gender stereotypes which are further complicated by sexual politics and differences in social power. So arguments which should be challenged, such as the “fact” that men leer more than women do, that they objectify women’s bodies more than women do men’s bodies, and that they just can’t stop watching porn, are explained as somehow being related to a mix of genetics, patriarchy, and simple mindedness.

Challenging these ideas can be a monumental task. Researcher bias being what it is, science rarely offers support for these "counter-intuitive" ideas. What's worse, when research does start to complicate matters, the media, and even smart bloggers who should know better, distort the findings beyond recognition.

Nonetheless, a recent study published in the journal Brain Research is offering the first preliminary but important evidence to dispel the age old myth that visual imagery is more important to men than it is to women. And it's worth considering without hyperbole.

http://sexuality.about.com/b/2006/06/19/new-brain-research-challenges-the-myth-that-men-are-more-visual-than-women.htm

___________________________

i like your post... but the last sentence doesnt bare out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:06 PM

18. You rang?

So, "rad fems" aren't [strike]feminin[/strike] er, lady-like enough and we should be speaking in dulcet tones so as not to offend anyone who thinks we should fucking die?

Please, I do beg your forgiveness for being so [strike]un-femini[/strike], er, un-lady-like.

Just one more question. I do hope it's not too much a waste of your precious time. Perhaps you can explain to little old me...

Why the fuck isn't limpbaugh dead? And the rest of his enabling, drooling, dittoheads along with him?

If we "feminazis" and "radfems" are as dangerous and violent as he, they, and apparently you, seem to believe...seriously, why the fuck aren't they all dead at the hands of a "feminazi"?

Ever wonder about that? How we're so evil that we've taken over the world as evidenced by our "radfem, feminazi, leader, Hillary Clinton" and yet the mras are still living and breathing. Well, except that one guy. Oh, and briebart.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #18)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:42 PM

71. you are sounding a bit hysterical, you know foaming at the mouth. HE asked for calm and reasoned,

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #71)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:46 PM

75. Meh. I must be 'pmsing' after all the crap I've been

reading at the mra boards.

Something about people wanting me to die a slow painful death always brings out my inner PMS. Yannow?

Oh, and thanks, sea.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #75)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:49 PM

78. omfg.... lmfao. sigh....

 

isnt it something. you couldnt pay me to read an mra board.

i wont even do a cnn board anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #78)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:59 PM

92. I still tend to do "opposition research".

It's a left-over habit from the old days.

Gotta know what the enemy is up to. These days, they've gone from words to actions; more so than before. We used to just have our mail trashed, get dog feces in the mail we did receive, lose custody of our children, and take the occasional beating from a "loved one." The mras are escalating to murder...mass murder in the case of brievak. Mass murder in the case of low-income women who need family planning health care. Among other things.

What we predicted is coming true. A "Handmaid's Tale" will seem mild by comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #92)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:10 PM

101. that is what i use du for....

 

i had to look up brievak. yes. you are right. i am learning a lot about mra position and the efforts they are going thru. i am learning and reading a concerted effort on attack against feminist and the movement. it has been very eye opening and you are absolutely correct, and not to be taken lightly. and it is so repug/fox'ish. they say, here is this with feminist. adn here is how you take out their argument. now all repeat. and go....

odd odd stuff.

but, you are right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #101)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:13 PM

106. They appear to be emboldened by the teabagger arm

of the repub party. They are dangerous. Anyone who says otherwise has not been "in the trenches" and dealt with them directly.

The next few years are going to be...dangerous...and enlightening. Remember, gallows humor is your friend. *sigh*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #106)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:14 PM

108. bushcos.... are who fed them and let them grow. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #108)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:21 PM

114. raygun is the most recent in modern history who

made hatred acceptable. Whether it's racism, homophobia, sexism, xenophobia, whatever, that administration and its enablers made it acceptable.

Various "churches"/"religions" have added legitimacy and militarism completes the circle.

It's as old as the history of *man*.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #114)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:24 PM

118. i was in a good place as far as sexism was concerned, and remember the racism and homophobia

 

but, now that i think about it, it was probably the working of turning the progressive, moving forward tide. i know something happened in the 90's to shift the direction we were going. maybe reagans me me me, hadnt worked out the pc and doing what we knew was right yet, but by the 90's something major happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #118)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:43 PM

135. The generation that benefitted from raygun's

"hatred is cool" theme, came of age. Some of the economic crap started taking out the "good kids" and they discovered that "greed is good" didn't benefit them quite as much as they thought it should.

We used to call it the "angry white men" syndrome. A whole bunch of white boys came of age and discovered they would be judged based on merit rather than biology and skin "color" and it pissed them off no end. Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? Another "white male" who was pissed he couldn't succeed on his UNEARNED privilege alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #135)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:53 PM

139. Oklahoma City bombing? Another "white male"

 

yes. by then i was tuned in.

the early 80's, i was young. very young and playing. i was always aware politically and current event, but not nearly as tuned in. i was in calif and one that was drawn in to vote reagan, but i was shy on the bday. and by the next election he had proven himself dishonest. a crook, breaking the law. that turned me. but the first election i was for him.... as an outsider.

i live in the panhandle of texas. he did that a couple days before i had my first son. three hour drive from here.

but yes, i know this male.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #139)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:04 PM

144. I appear to have a few years on you.

A friend and I were having "after exams" beers. The news came on and they were all talking about the "middle eastern" looking men who "may" have something to do with the bombing.

I looked to my study-buddy and said, "Nope, it's an angry white guy." He was. The common theme throughout "angry white men" is that they hate women, gays, any "race" "not-white", and pretty much, anyone else succeeding where they failed; but it's always, always, someone else's fault. In other words, the typical bully/abuser.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #144)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:17 PM

146. yep yep and yep. ones on uncontrolled boards that say the most amazing things. don't marry american

 

woman. get an mail order bride.

do they know how pathetic they sound? they think they are insulting american women. really all they are doing is highlighting their weak and cowardly self.

and yes, i remember they started with him being foriegn. okc bomber

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 18, 2012, 02:06 AM

385. Why that's downright uncivil, I do de-clay-uh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:08 PM

19. "RadFems"? Seriously? You kvetch about hyperbole/rhetoric and use a right-wing neologism.

You speak of logic and reason all the while calling women you disagree with names. ("RadFems"

LMAO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:11 PM

22. The sky is blue.

You can scream and shout "the sky is green with purple dots", but I can see it's blue.

Don't insult our intelligence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:12 PM

24. No.

lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:12 PM

26. There's absolutely nothing "radfem" about what women have been saying and I'm a man...

The Republicans ? Radical, yea, in the reverse direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Reply #26)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:21 PM

38. Just a minor nit.

Radical Feminism is about going to the *root* of the problem. Though it's conflated with what many think of as militant, and hate-filled, and dangerous, it's about finding and correcting the root problem.

republicans are militant, and hate-filled, and dangerous.

When I type "define radical" into the google search engine, I get this which is much closer to the definition of Radical Feminism.

rad·i·cal/ˈradikəl/
Adjective:
(esp. of change or action) Relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.
Noun:
A person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform.
Synonyms:
adjective. fundamental - drastic
noun. root - radix


The truly scary part for many people is: "A person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform."

The common thread through feminisms is anti-status quo. Truly terrifying for many people.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #38)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:24 PM

39. oh ok thank you for the clarification :) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:17 PM

31. just thought I would point out

Democrats normally win the women vote. Like 2008

Women voted for Obama by 56% to 43%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls.main/

or 2004, women voted for Kerry by 51% to 48%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

or 2000, women voted for Gore by 54% to 43%

http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/exitpolls.htm

so your statement that "Until the RadFems tone down their malicious, misandrist rhetoric, we will lose the majority of female registered voters in the United States"

is false in its basic assertion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:18 PM

32. What crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:18 PM

33. oh jesus....



&

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:19 PM

35. We should save our breath. harmony blue has decamped. didn't even stay

around to respond to ONE question!

What does that tell you about these cowards? Really? They can't stand up to the back and forth of debate so they just leave. How convenient.

Well, harmony, you have proven your mettle here all right, but that is all you have proven! Only it is not one you want...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #35)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:31 PM

47. Maybe he was carried off by "fminazis"

 

who like to "divide the male members"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManyShadesOf (Reply #47)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:37 PM

63. of course, that must be the reason! How perfect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #35)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:42 PM

70. This RadFem thing seems to be a theme with him/her.

119. These radical feminists believe all men are rapists

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=815154

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #70)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:47 PM

76. thank you for pointing that out. i saw i had to reply to a poster that went all hysterical on my

 

post. lol

calm and reasoned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #70)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:07 PM

98. Yes. And if we "get ourselves raped" it's because we

didn't think the man in question was a potential rapist but if we think he's a potential rapist then we think all men are rapists but when we don't we "get outselves raped" and if we did that it's because we didn't think all men were rapists but if we think all men are rapists then we're promoting "misandry" (look it up on the mra boards) and we can't promote thinking all men are rapists except when we suspect a man is a rapist then we're "sexist" because we shouldn't think all men are rapists except if....


Okay. That hurt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #98)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:12 PM

104. potential rapist. POTENTIAL

 

potential rapist

these men making this acusation NEVER seem to remember the potential part. pretty dishonest way to argue a point. and yes, the OP that wants reasoned and logical. but fuck, lie lie lie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #104)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:18 PM

112. If you want to understand mras, you'll have to understand

violence and bullying. I've seen very few who don't use the tactics of the abuser/bully. "Crazy making" is actually something discussed with regard to bully/abusers. "Gaslight" is another term to know. "Projection" is another.

They have taken this type of behavior into the courts, into police departments, and into congress. Women die because of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #112)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:27 PM

121. for a lifetime bullying has been an easy tell for me, and pretty damn fast. you are absolutely right

 

and the thing with me is i do not get intimidated. i dont get it. so someone tries and i dont even think.... man, i am suppose to be intimidated. cant be intimidated if one doesnt know what it feels like.

puff out your chest and hey, i puff out mine.

i have been so damn lucky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:26 PM

41. calmed reason, logical arguments, ... malicious, misandrist rhetoric,

 

yes, you have made you position perfectly clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:31 PM

46. Even the latest FoxNews poll has Obama up 6 points over Romney among women.

[div class="excerpt" style="border: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius: 0.4615em; box-shadow: 3px 3px 3px #bfbfbf;"][font style="font-size:0.8462em;"]Harmony Blue wrote:[/font]
It is quite apparent the majority of female registered voters are buying in to what the GOP is saying.

So you believe FoxNews is wrong that Obama leads among women voters? What polling are you looking at that would be even more biased than FoxNews?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:32 PM

49. Did someone spray crazy anti-feminism juice over part of the country in the last 72 hours?

 

Harmony, wtf are you talking about?

Yes, there is a group that identifies as Radfem and yes they are crazy, but they are not part of the national dialogue and are not influencing it in any way. They are a fringe group who were just thrown out of a venue they in which they planned to meet http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=6468 .

This is as bad as various conservatives talking about the new black panther party as if they are a significant part of the current black civil rights movement.

This OP is wrong-headed in so many ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #49)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:39 PM

66. Actually, steve, "radfem" is a term from the manosphere

to describe any women who dares speak her mind and doesn't STFU like the perfect little lady.
It's a limbaugh theme that goes with "feminazi."

There are outliers in the feminists movement just as there are in any. Upthread I've noted that the majority of women I've met who hate men with a passion that is horrible to see are generally, ultra-conservative women who live within their ultra-conservative world and who hate it. Think ann coulter and phyllis schlafley and the various talking heads from "concerned women of america" types. And the occasional newbie feminist going through the grieving process.

Ugly, but hardly representative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #66)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:43 PM

73. They are definitely outliers and not representative. This group self identifies with that label.

 

http://www.radfem2012.com/

They are transphobic and ugly in many ways, but your point and my original one stands. THey aren't on anyone's radar screen and are not influencing anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #73)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:52 PM

81. Transphobia is not a Radical Feminist stance.

Last edited Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:35 PM - Edit history (1)

Nor are any of the isms or phobias. Tearing down the status quo means that shit goes with it.

Anyone claiming that is worse than an outlier.

I'd have to check that group closely. It looks suspicious. Yeah, we have infiltrators in the women's movement. It goes back about 40 years if my mentors are correct. It started the same time the faux christians started invading the republican party and shortly after they started in on the Democratic Party and various civil rights groups, women's rights groups, and about the same time the mrm started and anything else the least bit left of totalitarianism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #81)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 07:18 PM

359. I found the term I was looking for, it's seperatist feminism. RadFem2012 is for seperatists.

 

It doesnt really matter because the OP wasnt referring to seperatism. I doubt the OP knows anything about feminism at all that wasnt spewed by the right wing media or blogosphere.

Seperatists are out there but outside of their transphobia who cares? I really don't care about folks that want to establish seperate societies by themselves. Let them go I say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #73)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:23 PM

116. Do they have any US members/chapters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #116)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 06:35 PM

349. They do, but I have been using the wrong terms. It really doesnt matter, the OP is wrongheaded

 

The OP talks about "Radical Feminists". Most 'radical feminists' have beliefs that most of us would consider not so radical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism
Radical feminism is a current theoretical perspective within feminism that focuses on the theory of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on an assumption that male supremacy[1] oppresses women. Radical feminism aims to challenge and overthrow patriarchy by opposing standard gender roles and oppression of women and calls for a radical reordering of society.[1] Early radical feminism, arising within second-wave feminism in the 1960s,[2] typically viewed patriarchy as a "transhistorical phenomenon"[3] prior to or deeper than other sources of oppression, "not only the oldest and most universal form of domination but the primary form"[4] and the model for all others.[4] Later politics derived from radical feminism ranged from cultural feminism[1] to more syncretic politics that placed issues of class, economics, etc. on a par with patriarchy as sources of oppression.[5]

Most of us on DU, including me, would agree with that. If the OP disagrees with that and/or disagrees with wanting to change patriarchy, I have to question if they belong on DU.

What I have been referencing in prior posts in this OP is actually seperatist feminism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatist_feminism I can see from further updates from the OP that they are not referring to seperatist feminism which basically has no effect on anything in politics anyway. RadFem2012 is a conference for seperatists.

Yes, there are seperatist feminist groups in the US and most other western countries. They do not concern me at all.

The bottom line is that the OP is nonsensical at best and at worst, (and quite likely) bigoted against women. I fully support radical feminism as described above and in the linked wiki.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:36 PM

57. Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.

 

That is something you apparently disagree with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:36 PM

59. What in the hell are you talking about? RadFems? Who are

 

you referring to, give me some names. Could it be: Sandra Fluke or Michigan State Reps Lisa Brown and Barb Byrum?
snip;
Brown's most egregious crime seems to be using the word "vagina" in the presence of delicate Republican man-ears.

Well it's quite obvious to me that you weren't one of us "RadFems" of the 60's.
Tone it down you say, Lady Harmony Blue, we have just begun!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:37 PM

61. "Radfem"? Are they a new band? Or maybe it's a mod for Skyrim?

I think your fears are exaggerated and misdirected. And if you've accepted the conservative narrative about feminism, then all the charts and data in the world won't help you.

Charts and data did not change people's monds about gay marraige. What changed it was a higher profile of gays and lesbians visible in "normal" roles, and the "gay marraige is the end of the world" people have been increasingly left out on a limb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:54 PM

85. Trolls are making it difficult for DU to continue anything resembling a thoughtful discussion

 

You're welcome for the time I'll never get back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:55 PM

86. oh mr OP man.... come out and play. we are being oh so calm and logical like instructed.

 

why did you run away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #86)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:00 PM

93. Not me. I'm hysterical

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManyShadesOf (Reply #93)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:13 PM

105. not very feminine of you. oh wait, or hysterical BEING feminine. sheeeeit

 

i am so confused.

i guess i will just have to swoon on the couch

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:03 PM

97. Who are these majority of female registered voters that buy into what the GOP is saying?

Where is your evidence for this?

And I've never heard of RadFeminists... are they radioactive?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:09 PM

99. Translation: Sit down and shut up, girls.

 

"RadFems"???

I suppose we ought to take that and run with it. I am PROUD to be a radical feminist, because the milquetoast sort was getting women exactly nowhere.

Thank you for your concern. You're a man, aren't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #99)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:17 PM

110. . I am PROUD to be a radical feminist

 

fuck. i never label me and clueless what i am. but, if anyone makes a word into a cuss word or insult i am all over it and grab on tight.

flaming liberal, dem (in my neck of the woods), feminist is the big deal around here, 2nd wave.... whatever. i guess now i will take on rad.... rad, is pretty rad anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #110)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:31 PM

128. sea, I would very much like for you to understand this.

That whole pitting feminists 'wave' against 'wave', came off the mra boards. Damn near verbatim.

They use/d it to divide feminists. Please remember. mras have their enablers and their enablers are frequently women who hate feminists. Their lives suck and they need to blame someone, anyone.

Please know the 'wave' wars were catapulted by the mras.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #128)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:35 PM

130. i knew the wave battle was bullshit once we were hit with it. then i did months of research

 

on it. the last couple months i have been learning exactly what you are saying. it started in one place, moved to another and then, there it was, mra. that is what i was referring to in another post to you. surprise.... mra is smack in the middle of all this shit. thank you for saying it out loud. and being another voice. and being so damn smart. but, the last couple weeks i have been having others provide this very conversation.

thank you cerridwen

maybe i will be able to put some of it in our forum. unfortunately, what i have been learning, du is not the place for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #130)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:18 PM

147. I've experienced it first hand.

It was ugly. And it was a lie.

But...please understand this...it was a page from the neo-conservative/ultra-conservative/anti-women play book.

It didn't work against me but it will work against those noobie feminists who don't quite have feminisms internalized.

You'll get there. You might not like the "there" at which you arrive. It will pass. But you'll get there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #147)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:24 PM

149. well

 

now you have to pm me what the "there" is. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #149)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:43 PM

156. No PM required.

It goes like this:

Check the stages of grief.

A woman discovers that much she accepted as "common knowledge" is based on a rather, um, biased, sense of knowledge and the commons.

She finds that her "religious" leaders, political leaders, societal leaders have been lying to her her entire life. She grieves the loss. She goes through the stages of grief. Men do much the same if they are the least bit "sensitive."

When they start to realize this, stuff, has been catapulted for millenia, they start to questions...EVERYTHING.

It's painful. It's enlightening. It's "consciousness raising". It's "hard werk". Easier to shove ones head back into the sand. Unfortunately, what has been learned cannot be unlearned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #156)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:47 PM

158. oh woman...

 

geeez, i am so beyond that, lol. you may have a few years on me, but not that many,

ya. i hear ya. i am not attached to too much of anything. just one great big huge exploration of learning and insight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #130)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:33 PM

152. sea - you are right

sadly DU is not the place for it in the large forums but the safe haven groups should be able to talk about it comfortably.

One of the problems with DU is that so many posters (including many with a high post count) are from the enemy camp. I don't see any way around that unless a zero tolerance policy is adopted for sexist and bigoted posts/posters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #152)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:36 PM

154. thanks.

 

i have been thinking about putting a thread together for a couple weeks now. i will look into that next week. i am just starting getting the info, and it is interesting what comes along in the learning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #128)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:24 AM

170. Interesting...

something to keep in mind when someone rewards one type of feminist and demonizes the other... for some mysterious reason which I couldn't even begin to take a guess at what it might be of course. No, never.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #170)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 07:22 AM

204. I'll say it: Feminists who advertise their fuckablity are cool.

The other kind, not so much.



It's pretty damn obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #204)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:17 PM

269. You are taking away female sexual agency with this remark

about "fuckability."

that is saying women do not have sexual agency to be the "fuckers" instead of the "fucked." Whether you realize it or not - you are consigning female desire to whether a male desires a female.

Because a female talks about sexuality from a female perspective - is that advertising fuckability?

I don't get how this is any different than 19th c. madonna/whore stereotypes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #269)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:09 PM

303. I think she was talking about a mans opinion, not another woman's opinion.

This really isn't that difficult. Many men are very pleased with women being the fuckers, it's all good for them. So they automatically have a higher affinity for those feminists than a feminist who might disagree with the sexualization of her body as an object by a male. Because for the man it is still the same, nothing has really changed. It doesn't matter to a man that in the womans mind she feels in control or empowered or has sexual agency, she is still giving him a fuck. And he fucked her. Focusing on the male pov here....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #303)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:13 PM

306. LOL

all the more reason to not care about the male pov if a female wants to claim agency for herself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #306)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:28 PM

308. What is one really changing then, culturally and societally.

Hell, I'm definitely not saying that women should not have sexual agency. However, it's still great for the man and maybe even better.... Does it really shift the power paradigm away from men? I guess, if you look at it from decades ago, it's better for women in some ways (although, madonna/whore still exists), but I don't think it shifts the power paradigm enough.......

Sure it's great personally for women, and that's a good thing, and women should have sexual freedom. But that came from the birth control pill.

But that is one issue I have with the 3rd wave, it is too personal and all over the place, and not enough of a cohesive movement. However, I don't know how we all really get there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #308)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:47 PM

316. maybe that "third wave" is a reflection of the success of the "second wave"

obviously we are a long, long, long way from equality and sexism is a huge part of society that impacts all women in various ways - but if the second wave feminists had not been so successful in changing the conversation in the west about the role of women in society - other women wouldn't have had to freedom to look at various issues within 2nd wave feminism.

ultimately, I don't think "third wave feminism" is a rejection of "second wave" at all. I think it's an expansion.

What I see within various social movements is the reality that those with economic and social power (education, connections, etc.) are able to make their case. Sometimes their povs are somewhat narrowly focused, or work on the first obstacle - but there are others that come after.

If radical feminists had not questioned the very nature of what constitutes female - we could not have people arguing that patriarchal institutions harm males as well as females - because those institutions put men in as much of a social straitjacket as they do women. It's no easier to be a "success object" than it is to be a "sex object."

Barbara Ehrenreich argued that women still define men as desirable if those men earn more money - it is a sign of status for a female to marry a male who makes money - and upper middle and upper class women who complain there are no men available do so because they are engaging in classism - refusing to consider a male worthwhile if he is not in her economic class.

Ehrenreich also notes, tho, that poverty is feminized - poverty is the U.S. is directly related to one's gender, overall. This has to do with the costs of child bearing, rearing, many male's rejection of females who have children because of a fear of that economic burden - and, most of all, it has to do with a govt that still tells women to get married - not out of love, but to improve their economic standing - rather than admit that the state might have a reason to want to help move women out of poverty because, to do so, is good for the nation and the children those women raise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #316)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 03:08 PM

324. I really do not think

that the discussion on what constitutes being a woman was a really huge issue within the movement, especially today. It was new and just starting again after 50 years of pretty much stagnation. I really think it's an issue which has come to define the members of the movement versus a learning curve. It has happened in all movements. And it is used to brand women who still hold true to the belief that the patriarchy exists and gender as a social construct, by those who wish to undermine feminism and feminists.

What you write about men is true, however they do hold a privilege by just being born male. I do believe the patriarchy affects both women and men. However, the patriarchy is a form of oppression more so of women. I don't think that a focus on mens rights within the feminist movement is helpful. Feminists believe in equal rights for all, but the feminist movement is about equal rights for women. If all was equal, there would be no need to be a feminist or a need for the feminist movement. Although I do believe that men would benefit if feminist policy was enacted legislatively and accepted socially and culturally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #324)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 03:27 PM

329. to note a reality doesn't mean a focus

as I said - inequality is still a huge part of society that impacts women far more than men. that was my initial statement and the closing comment regarding economic issues related to males and females. however, men also have a stake in feminism because it includes liberation for them from gender stereotypes as well - many men are decent and do not want to participate in a system that allows them privilege because of an accident of birth.

for this same reason, you have trust fund babies or wealthy people who advocate for higher taxes on wealth - not because the benefit accrues to them, but because it is a more equitable system that does not punish someone because of an accident of birth or b/c of health issues that create poverty, or because one group does most of the hard work, etc.

I don't see that anything I wrote is a focus on men's rights - it was an observation about gender roles from the other perspective. Do you really think that the mere mention of this somehow harms feminism or requires a argument about what feminism is?

I don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #329)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 03:37 PM

331. Sometimes, I do feel it is used to diminish the patriarchal effect on women.

Yes I do.

ETA, I've got to run it's Fathers Day and my Dad passed on in March, I've got somethings I need to do over at his gravesite.

I'll try to catch up later, if I miss something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #331)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 03:43 PM

332. so the mere mention of it is oppressive?

if someone makes a point by indicating another part of an issue - you have to object to that point?

how do you think the civil rights movement would've fared if MLK said - sorry, you white people who are joining in the voter registration drives - this isn't about you.

no doubt we see that racism still exists in the way issues related to Af-Ams are portrayed, even now, in movies - when a movie about civil rights focuses on the white people involved (Mississippi Burning) - or when a movie about the slave revolt on Amistad focuses on the white men who defended the case.

But that still-existing racism does not negate the reality that some white people decided civil rights was an important enough issue that they gave their lives, too. It's not THE issue - but it's part of it - and it undermines all segregationist povs by its mere existence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #332)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 06:21 PM

347. Where did I say that?

I suspect you are reading way too much into my words.

I said that sometimes people use it to diminish the effect of the patriarchy on women.

Which is a valid point. I didn't say you, I didn't imply you. I was making a statement in general. Sheesh!

You know the other side of the coin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #331)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 04:00 PM

334. take care of you....

 

a hug to take with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #306)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:29 PM

309. maybe that is the difference. maybe we see how another POV effects us all. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #309)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 03:09 PM

325. I detest fundamentalist religion

I try to encourage people to move away from that ideology b/c I find it repulsive. I see that pov impacts others.

that doesn't mean I give a shit what they think, however, because I think their pov is worthless. they don't define me to myself and they don't define others for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #325)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 03:18 PM

328. this would be the difference of seeing the whole and viewing individually. the issue. you defined

 

it perfectly and gave an example.

personally i do not give a shit what individuals believe.... you are so right on there. the issue is, to dismiss them as not having an effect on society, the same as porn, the same as mans pov of women, is to bury your head in the sand, from my POV, lol.

we had better be pretty damn concerned about how others pov of religion effect us as a whole, as a society. we are seeing the effects right here, and right now.

we had better be pretty damn concerned how mans pov effect us as a gender. again, we are seeing the effects here and now.

and for me, that is the difference between 3rd wave and 2nd wave.

third say, each his own. and let it go at that.

2nd says each effects the whole and does not let it go at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #328)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 03:50 PM

333. actually, it's not that at all

it's saying that the existence of those people does not determine who I am - I don't define myself in the way that they do - and others need not, either.

That's moving away from the dominant paradigm.

That's also providing a different frame to undermine the fundamentalist pov - while acknowledging, at the same time, that this nation offers the 1st amendment right of those with whom I vehemently disagree to express that opinion and to face objection to it and argument against it.

you simply cannot frame this as you being someone who really cares and others who find freedom of expression important beyond on particular issue as selfish.

the way you frame this is lacking in intellectual rigor. others can have an opinion that you don't share for reasons that are equally valid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #333)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 04:11 PM

335. you cannot dismiss what i say merely by telling me i cannot state it or insult me.

 

see how easy that is?

"the way you frame this is lacking in intellectual rigor". no, not true. studies, history, psychology and sociology, or intellectual conversation would bare it out.

the underlying point i made is not addressed. regardless of how harsh it may sound, or you feel it is a diss, the reality is, for me, is micro or macro.

you internally say another cannot define you. i externally proclaim, no one is going to define me or a whole group of me, and that includes a society.

i get it. neither are allowing the defining. but.... IMO.... third wave is allowing a societal defining at the cost of women as a whole.

agree or dont.

but, that is the difference.

right or wrong.

i give you all that.

i just do not buy into what you are saying. not when it comes to human nature. not when we have a history that clearly maps it out for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #335)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 04:36 PM

338. I'm giving you back what you serve up

you consistently claim that feminists who don't agree with you are not true feminists.

so, I point out that you calling yourself a radfem is something of an issue b/c you don't walk the walk, according to the basic definition of the term.

you try to claim that my remarks about the way in which to approach an issue - in a way that does not work for censorship - indicates selfishness while you care about everyone.

this is a preposterous claim. and, as such, it lacks intellectual rigor because a defense of the fucking 1st amendment is not a selfish act.

if you don't want others to attack you, then stop attacking others. it's THAT SIMPLE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #338)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 04:58 PM

339. no. you are not giving back what i give. you are not liking the view of 3rd wave

 

and take it as an insult.

it is what it is.

i am sorry, if when said out loud, it is not pretty. but that is really not my fault.

you want to dish it all up in a nice little bow. but the reality is, to be the third wave you define it is ignoring the social repercussions in favor of the individual free will, and NOT calling out the social ills that are created to see the ugly picture being made and how it works for the patriarchy.

that is talking about the waves. that is talking about the issues. that is what the argument is. you want to reduce it to personal insult. that is your intellectual bankruptcy, right there. not mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #339)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 05:14 PM

341. the first time I ever exchanged a post with you

you attacked me as "not a true feminist."

THE VERY FIRST POST.

I didn't know you from a hole in the ground - and that was your response.

as I noted elsewhere here - the reality is that third wave is an expansion of 2nd wave feminist issues to include third world, the poor and issues of transgender.

you mischaracterize what I have said here - maybe because you saw such an argument posted somewhere - who knows. I have tried many times to reach some sort of basic civility with you and you inevitably attack - your attack now is bullshit. no where did I nor do I claim that individual free will rather than social ills are the problem with feminist issues.

you are making this shit up. and then you turn around and say how your position (defined in opposition to something I never said, is the valid feminism.

that's intellectual dishonestly - and, frankly, I am so tired of you that I am done with this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #341)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 05:17 PM

342. "not a true feminist." you are the only one that has said that, and repeatedly. woman,

 

we disagree. it is that simple

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #342)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 05:23 PM

343. you include such a quote on this very thread

and you regularly include such a quote.

and, yes, we disgree.

I think that free speech is essential for female empowerment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #342)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 11:40 PM

381. this is also a lie

you cannot find one place on DU where I have said anyone is "not a true feminist."

please delete this post because you are lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #339)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 08:18 PM

367. you know I said I was done with this

but I'm not.

point out ONE PLACE on this ENTIRE THREAD where I said that individual rights rather than collective political action is what matters.

because you claim you disagree with me and claim I said that - but I didn't say that - you did. not me.

so, I'm saying you are a liar and I am telling you that the issue is not that we disagree - the issue is that you are lying about what I said.

I don't know if that's because you make assumptions that are not in existence or because you want to deliberately lie.

in either case - prove your claim that I have once said on this thread, or anywhere else here on DU on any issue related to feminism that I support individual action rather than collective good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #128)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:51 AM

191. The issue of "waves" was started by younger feminists

in the late 1980s and early 1990s - and one primary voice was Rebecca Walker, the daughter of Alice Walker. Rebecca's godmother is Gloria Steinem. Rebecca Walker was a contributing editor to Ms Magazine.

Just to say - the mra may have picked up on it, I don't know - but the initial discussions came from feminists, not men. Men did not frame the issue - women did. Men did not object to certain aspects of second wave feminism that are contained within the critiques by third wave feminists - those came from women.

In Rebecca Walker's case - a lot of her thinking about this issue was very personal - but that wasn't always the case with women at the time when some sought to move feminism in other directions. Rebecca Walker does not hate feminists and is not an enabler of those who hate feminists. Neither are others who define themselves as third wave feminists or who agree with their positions on issues. To claim this is the case is simply wrong, a-historical and propaganda.

Third wave feminism does not hold the same view of pornography as second-wave thought - and women who were initially part of second wave feminism are included in this group that does not view all pornography as violence - though some definitely is. One of my professors was a second wave feminist who stridently objected to the MacKinnon/Dworkin led anti-porn feminist movement. She gave public talks about the topic and provided critiques of the anti-porn movement from the position of free speech. At the same time, she didn't want the issue to become something that would pit feminist against feminist - but the objections were there among prominent feminist scholars in the late 1980s and 1990s. The ACLU also spoke against the WAP objectives.

The objections were there in the early 1980s - a famous conference at Barnard excluded the anti-porn group - who, in turn, picketed the conference. So, again, anyone who tries to make a claim about women who do not support the anti-porn movement and claim they are not feminists is ignorant about the history of feminism in many ways.

No doubt right wingers pick up on topics that create discussion and sometimes division - but that does not mean those people framed the issue or began it.

Unless Ms Magazine is really supportive of the MRA and has been super sneaky all this time - but I doubt that.

This sort of reductionism - to pretend women were not the ones defining positions - is sexist itself - and it is factually incorrect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #191)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 08:49 AM

218. That does not negate the fact that it is used

by men to further slice and dice us up against one another.

I've seen it here on this board, and some women going along with it.

I personally think that the differences of opinion are good, that doesn't mean that a side wins out because more men support women who support fashion, high heels and personal appearance as a source of power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #218)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:02 PM

266. Yes. And women do this to one another as well

I personally think that the differences of opinion are good, that doesn't mean that a side wins out because more men support women who support fashion, high heels and personal appearance as a source of power.


This statement entirely misses the point - it's not about fashion, high heels and personal appearance as power. Surely you don't think this issue comes down to something so trivial?

The issue, as I mentioned (and never mentioned the above) is about censorship, for the most part. It's also about who gets to define female sexuality and (censorship again) how it is expressed.

A lot of people really do take the issue of censorship seriously as the sort of thing that is not encouraged in and of itself because women's voices and experiences were censored for so long - and also because of the reality of "unintended consequences" of being pro-censorship for one part of speech, thinking that only one part will be impacted by this.

That's rarely the case.

Women long participated in condemning other women for behaving outside the sexual norm of marriage and family. Were this women "feminist" for telling women they could not express their sexuality outside of a patriarchal institution? Such censorship served those women who were aligned with patriarchal institutions - not the general liberation of consciousness of females.

James Joyce's Ulysses contained one of the most "radical" feminine voices in literature of its time (the 1920s.) Molly Bloom was the creation of a male writer - but he "knew" Molly as a human. - Molly Bloom was a woman who spoke openly about sex in a positive way - she had lovers other than her husband - she was sometimes crude - and she was not a villain - this was a rare sort of female character. She was not punished for her sexuality. She empowered women - even though the character was written by a man (based upon his wife.)

The book's publication in the U.S. was a first amendment case. Ulysses is considered by many to be the greatest work of modern literature - yet it could not be published in the U.S. for nearly a decade because it included a masturbation subplot, and Molly's soliloquy (which is, also, considered a great affirmation of life and womanhood.) It also contained criticisms of Catholicism - but the issue that led to its banning was obscenity.

Although the anti-porn issue is too often framed in opposition to "sex positive" (another term coined by a feminist) - the "sex positive" term also encompasses another line of thought. I don't know if you've ever read Shulamith Firestone, but her cultural critique of society came to the conclusion that women's biological existence - their capacity to get pregnant and the resultant child rearing - was the "problem" and the "solution" was to relegate these functions to the lab and the state.

Many women rejected this as a rejection of women - rather than the structures of society - why should women have to give up their biological processes in order to overcome bias in society?

Patriarchy is a cultural invention, not a biological one, according to most people - and, just as with racism, many people may share a cultural paradigm because institutions have created it - but that doesn't mean it is impossible to overcome this ideology. We see this in fits and starts - forward movement and backlash - and we see that racism, sexism and homophobia often come wrapped up in the same patriarchal worldview - which is, fwiw, generally religious in its origin.

Religion, too, is cultural - it's not necessary to believe in one sort of concept of god - but monotheisms, for instance, are powerful around the world - yet even they can be altered to involve more inclusiveness and acceptance of science and a quiet admittance (among some) that their beliefs are wholly grounded in sexism. But some people - some women, do reject religion because so much of it is cultural backwash anti-feminism disguised as god - that doesn't mean they think it's good to censor religion - but does mean they think it's good to fight against those religions that consistently work to oppress women - which is every single monotheism.

So, who gets to decide who is feminist? If you are married and have children - can you be a feminist? Most people think this is possible - yet study after study shows that marriage causes females and males to resort of traditional gender roles more than any other factor. This relationship, rather than porn, is FAR, FAR more likely to be the cause of female economic inequality.

Linda Hirschman argues, in Get To Work, that upper and middle class women who have the option to stay home with their children hurt themselves and feminism to take this privilege. Is the problem that someone stays at home, or that child rearing is not acknowledged as a job - or that work itself is structured to favor traditional male gender roles as "provider" at the expense of male parental involvement and female participation in the workforce within a field for which she has been trained?

Hirschman is pragmatic - she says that individuals cannot alter the economic environment that is, itself, patriarchal - but individuals can make choices that, collectively, demand change or, at the least, do not economically hurt the women who make them. But that still leaves out poor women. Interestingly, longitudinal studies do indicate that lower-class marriages are more egalitarian - even if the rhetoric isn't there to support this view - because economics force men and women to share workloads. So, is money itself, or the pursuit of it, patriarchal in nature - is success and power, as a women, a means of sustaining the system that oppresses women? Or do women have to work individually and collectively - is power something that has to be acknowledged - and power differentials something that women who have it have to acknowledge and collectively work to share power with those with less in order to alter the system from within? If we acknowledge how change happens - it happens when power is shared - across gender or race or orientation - and those within those groups add their voices to shaping institutions, it seems to me. But that still leaves hard questions.

Can you be a feminist if you believe in and participate in a monotheistic religion? Most people think this is possible - yet religion, rather than porn, informs childhood perceptions of females as "lesser" or "morally corrupt," far, far more than porn - most children aren't exposed to porn, but exposure to such toxic views of females within religion is inescapable in American culture. Monotheisms, however, murdered the female sacred. Which is more harmful to a culture - a belief in god that excludes women or the existence of porn? I know which one I think has broader cultural influence - and I think it's possible to argue that such religion promotes the pornification of women by teaching children that women are the "weaker sex" and that childbirth involves pain as a punishment. So, where should women's efforts be focused? On porn or on religion?

fwiw - back to Firestone... she and another woman, Ellen Willis, founded a feminist group in the late 1960s. Firestone split and formed New York Radical Feminists. Willis was one of the first, or really, the first women to write rock criticism in major mainstream and underground venues (which was anthologized last year) - she broke that barrier - she also spoke out strongly against the "anti-porn" feminist faction and coined the term "sex-positive feminism" and wrote about this issue. So, in those two women you have a microcosm of the terms "radical feminist, anti-porn feminist and sex-positive feminist." The origin of these terms begins in 1969, among "second wave feminists."

On Our Backs was a lesbian feminist porn magazine founded in the early 1980s in response to the anti-porn movement. I don't think those women were touting the male gaze as a path to power. They WERE saying... we, as lesbians, can define our sexuality, including a "gaze" that looks to one another, not just one way.

To claim that sex positive means high heels is just too reductive.

I'm not here to say this OP is anything other than bullshit. But I am also not going to buy into the view that one version of feminism defines all feminists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #266)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:06 PM

267. That censorship you speak of is a two way street, when we as women are discussing this......

It's not just one side being judged here, is it?

I kept it simple for a reason, to make a very simple point. Many feminists do want to bust gender roles and don't find any of it feminist in any way.

However, like I said it is not a one way street of censorship. On the other high heeled foot, you have those who want to shut out women who feel differently and call them prudes and the like, shaming them in their own way.

It's a big ole ball of wax, but that doesn't make 2nd wavers and 3rd wavers or whatever you want to call it to distinguish it, at eachothers throats.

There is different theory and different feelings. Again, the censorship is not a one way street.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #267)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:30 PM

271. The issue was censorhip at the state level

regarding the anti-porn movement and the sex positive movement within feminism.

it was about STATE-LEVEL censorship - a first amendment issue.

if you want to claim that those who supported, and support first amendment protections are about censorship - this is truly nonsensical. The issue of censorship in that context was about protecting even those feminists who object to porn to have the capacity to speak about this issue - while others disagree.

but you are framing this, really, as a personal issue on this board. I'm not. The issue is bigger than personalities on this board.

on this board you are going to find people who disagree with one another and who disagree with the way arguments are framed and who don't find some people can or do make compelling arguments for their side.

maybe some people need to work on making better arguments. if one group tells another group they cannot possibly be feminist if they disagree - why would those women so labeled find anything worthwhile in such an argument? It is an ad hominem attack. it's like someone in a self help group who learns the lingo and goes around telling everyone else she is in denial because to deny this is denial. It doesn't matter what the reasoning is - it's just the capacity to attack the other person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #271)


Response to RainDog (Reply #271)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:49 PM

284. Being anti porn as a woman and speaking out against it is not a censorship issue

for the other side. I'm not seeing it. Going back decades to make this point seems counterproductive to today's feminism. The arguments have changed, society has changed. I'm not seeing too much regulation on it anyhow. Seems to be a booming business. Seems as though most feminists who believe it is harmful to women work for societal change, not political. Maybe I'm wrong and there are feminists out there writing these laws and working to get them enacted.

So, why use all these same old tired tactics to divide. I understand their is a difference of opinion on how many women personally feel about this. And the issue is not just censoring people, there are other concerns.

And yes, there are laws made for the protection of people. Many are not considered a free speech issue or censorship issue.

Not saying that I agree or don't agree, I'm sort of split about it personally, so don't think I could be all that one sided about it as you accuse me of making it personal.

And I agree with your last paragraph, I thought I've made it clear. I wish the divisions would stop especially amongst women. 3rd wavers and 2nd wavers do this enough to eachother, which was my point, and I think it's unnecessary and a two way street of censorship.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #284)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:11 PM

305. I'm not "accusing you" of anything

the context you refer to seems to clearly indicate issues on this forum. maybe I'm wrong about that.

the current issues derive from this history of this movement - that's why I mention them because context is part of any issue.

the anti-porn movement did not succeed in its work to make pornography something that would allow women to sue others based upon a framework of a violation of civil rights - that's what the goal was. That was the reason for Dworkin's testimony to the Meese committee.

The Meese committee was formed during the Reagan administration. It was part of conservatism's attack on a right to privacy, which, btw, is also the basis for Roe v. Wade. The reason it was an attack on a right to privacy was b/c of a Supreme Court Ruling in 1969 that said the state could not punish someone for the possession of obscenity. After the SC ruling, Congress had a commission on pornography that criticized the Supreme Court ruling - Congress, LBJ and Reagan all rejected the ruling that protected obscenity possession as a right to privacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_v._Georgia

Griswold v. Connecticut was another right to privacy case that was settled 4 years before Stanley. It protected married couples to a right to privacy - no state could interfere with the use of birth control because sexuality was a right to privacy issue and the state could not compel a couple to engage in compulsory childbirth. Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extended this right to privacy to non-married couples. Both of these Supreme Court decisions and the movement of the U.S. toward acceptance that sexuality is a matter or privacy, and not something the state may legislate, were crucial for Roe v. Wade. The history of these rulings set precedence for Lawrence v. Texas. Law is defended or opposed based upon precedence as well as constitutionality.

This is why this history matters.

It is the history of liberation of women and homosexuals - two groups whose sexuality, the state believed, was theirs to control.

The backlash to these rulings is still being argued today - so this history isn't exactly history, either.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #266)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:03 PM

296. Your posts on these issues are so interesting and enlightening

 

I simply must publicly tip my hat to you. Thank you for your reason, analytic abilities and clear expression of complex thoughts. Brava!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #296)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:35 PM

314. thanks!

even within the context of a sexist OP - it's possible to talk about the issues that provide the basis for many of the cultural war fights that are ongoing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #191)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 09:24 AM

230. Thanks for posting

Very informative, and saved me the trouble of doing it.

Women "framed" the Waves discussions, not men. Yet another thing being co-opted from us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #191)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:05 AM

237. "a famous conference at Barnard excluded the anti-porn group"

Interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #237)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:40 PM

277. I should clarify - they weren't included in organizing the event

This was an important moment in the division of feminist thought and the history of modern feminism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Barnard_Conference_on_Sexuality

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?cc=mfsfront;c=mfs;c=mfsfront;idno=ark5583.0022.101;rgn=main;view=text;xc=1;g=mfsg


Feminist discussions of sex work, s/m, [1] and women-centered sexualities uncovered a rift between feminists who believed firmly that women could claim sexual pleasure and agency within a patriarchal society, and women who believed that embracing radical sexualities constituted violence against women and submission to patriarchal ideals.

This conflict rose to the surface of feminist discussions partially as a result of a conference held at Barnard College in 1982, The Scholar and the Feminist IX. [2] As a result of the conversations that happened at this conference, a clash surfaced between women who embraced the pleasure of sexuality, and women who focused on the dangers inherent in sexual exploration. Women who embraced pleasure often acknowledged the dangers inherent in female sexuality, but chose to focus their analysis on the positive aspects of sexual interaction. On the other hand, women who centered their discussions of sexuality on danger acknowledged the possibility for pleasure in sexual acts, but believed that the inherent dangers (rape, sexual assault, domestic violence) overshadowed any pleasure that could be gained. While there were certainly feminist thinkers who fell somewhere in the middle, the broader feminist discussion became organized around this dichotomy.

Recognizing the Barnard conference as the center of these feminist debates around sexuality, and considering the fruitful contradictions that have come from this moment in feminism, this article is an analysis of the feminist sexuality debates as they played out in the academic press. The feminist academic press is an ideal archive for understanding the ways that the personal and the political became conflated within feminist discussions of sexuality. As this article demonstrates, the personal and the political are mutually reinforcing, a phenomenon which is most clearly seen in the ways this debate played out in scholarly publications. In this space, theory, politics, and practice wove together to present a highly complex picture of the feminist sexuality debates in the moment during which they became most public.

[t]here is a vacuum about sexuality evident in feminists’ theory and our lives. The feminist movement is in a political crisis, in part concerning sexuality. The Right has proposed a comprehensive theory of sexuality and the feminist response has been lacking (Vance 1982: 13).


This illuminates one of the key conflicts between radical and sex-radical feminists: the latter were highly concerned that the former’s understanding of sexuality, particularly as it related to non-traditional sex practices, looked too much like the ‘Religious Right’s.’ Feminists in this moment struggled to navigate the question of how a feminist critique (of pornography or BDSM for example) would differ from a conservative Christian critique. An analysis of danger within sexuality lends itself to a discussion of issues that more conservative groups were also interested in. This led to a divide in the feminist community that became as much about how one understands patriarchal control (whether it be through actual sexual domination, or a dominance over the discourse of sex), as it was about the binary between pleasure and danger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #110)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:44 PM

279. yet some would say you're not a radical feminist

you're married and have children. you participate in a patriarchal institution. you have sex with a man.

I'm not saying what you are - radical feminist or not - I'm just saying that the appropriation of the term by one side or another really doesn't convey the meaning of the term in the context of feminist critique of society.

just from the little bit I know you here - I would not say you are a radical feminist but would say you are an anti-porn feminist. the two aren't necessarily the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #279)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:46 PM

281. what does anti porn entail? and where does it say that a radfem does not have sex with a man? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #281)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:49 PM

285. you can find a lot of information

about these factions within feminism online.

the anti-porn feminist movement is something I've written about, below - and lots of information is available online.

radical feminism defined itself, in the radical 1960s, as "political lesbianism" - i.e. not necessarily biologically lesbian, but rejecting the structures of society that included marriage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #285)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:54 PM

287. Are you positive about all this? All radical feminists are also separatists and political lesbians?

To me that comes off sounding like all New Democrats are anti union and pro-life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #287)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:30 PM

310. I was really just talking about framing

radical feminists reject traditional gender roles - such as wife or mother.

I think the larger point is that people define themselves but they don't always align with the "logical expression" of these alignments. I don't claim a rejection of wife or mother is a "logical expession" - within feminism, however, the claim was that the logical expression of a rejection of patriarchy would include a reject of traditional female roles within it.

I think the reality is that most people are far more complex than any label anyone tries to put out there for any person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #285)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:55 PM

288. you defined me. anti porn. is that to ban porn? simple enough. is anti porn

 

working to ban porn.

that is a very narrow and inaccurate definition of radfem.

Radical feminism is a current theoretical perspective within feminism that focuses on the theory of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on an assumption that male supremacy[1] oppresses women. Radical feminism aims to challenge and overthrow patriarchy by opposing standard gender roles and oppression of women and calls for a radical reordering of society.[1] Early radical feminism, arising within second-wave feminism in the 1960s,[2] typically viewed patriarchy as a "transhistorical phenomenon"[3] prior to or deeper than other sources of oppression, "not only the oldest and most universal form of domination but the primary form"[4] and the model for all others.[4] Later politics derived from radical feminism ranged from cultural feminism[1] to more syncretic politics that placed issues of class, economics, etc. on a par with patriarchy as sources of oppression.[5]

Radical feminists locate the root cause of women's oppression in patriarchal gender relations, as opposed to legal systems (as in liberal feminism) or class conflict (as in socialist feminism and Marxist

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #288)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:33 PM

312. actually - I don't want to define you in any way

I pointed out the issue that I have seen you address here in relation to others - and, as noted above, radical feminism claims that the outcome of an embrace of such a position is to reject traditional female roles such as wife and mother.

as I said, above, I don't think that most people are the embodiment of any particular "ism."

I didn't say that radfem was anti-porn. I said anti-porn was a faction within feminism.

these labels aren't ones I invented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #312)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:53 PM

317. no. you said you thought i was anti porn. which is fair enough. i am asking you to define

 

what is anti porn. please. i think you stated that anti porn is working thru legislation to ban/censor. i am asking how you define anti porn. it is important, when labeling, that we know what that label is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #317)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:59 PM

320. that's a tricky one

Gloria Steinem was not against all porn - she made a distinction between certain sorts of porn and lighter forms she called "erotica."

Others, such as Dworkin and feminists who spoke against the anti-porn movement in feminism, did not make that exception - they said the term was not specific enough - which, of course, comes down to the definition of porn itself - the "I know it when I see it" definition.

What constitutes porn for one doesn't constitute porn for the other.

Is Emmanuelle porn or erotica? Is The Story of O? Is Fifty Shades of Grey? Is it porn if it's visual and erotica if written?

I said you were anti-porn based upon your posts that I have seen here - but, again, I don't want to define you.

Anti-porn, at its most basic, is a movement that defines all porn as demeaning.

So, I guess you can tell me if you're anti-porn or not. And if that includes erotica or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #320)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 03:13 PM

326. so banning/censorship is not a must in defining anti porn? steinem is absolutely anti porn and sat

 

with dworkin



Along with Susan Brownmiller and Catharine MacKinnon, Steinem has been a vehement critic of pornography, which she distinguishes from erotica: "Erotica is as different from pornography as love is from rape, as dignity is from humiliation, as partnership is from slavery, as pleasure is from pain." Steinem's argument hinges on the distinction between reciprocity versus domination. She writes, "Blatant or subtle, pornography involves no equal power or mutuality. In fact, much of the tension and drama comes from the clear idea that one person is dominating the other." On the issue of same-sex pornography, Steinem asserts, "Whatever the gender of the participants, all pornography is an imitation of the male-female, conqueror-victim paradigm, and almost all of it actually portrays or implies enslaved women and master." Steinem also cites "snuff films" as a serious threat to women



Andrea Dworkin is most often remembered for her role as a speaker, writer, and activist in the feminist anti-pornography movement.[30][31][32] In February 1976, Dworkin took a leading role in organizing public pickets of Snuff in New York City and, during the fall, joined Adrienne Rich, Grace Paley, Gloria Steinem, Shere Hite, Lois Gould, Barbara Deming, Karla Jay, Letty Cottin Pogrebin, Robin Morgan, and Susan Brownmiller in attempts to form a radical feminist antipornography group.[33] Members of this group would go on to found Women Against Pornography in 1979, but by then Dworkin had begun to distance herself from the group over differences in approach.[34] Dworkin spoke at the first Take Back the Night march in November 1978, and joined 3,000 women in a march through the red-light district of San Francisco.[35]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #326)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 03:35 PM

330. you can tell me your position about that

the problem with Steinem's definition is her interpretation.

Steinem asserts, "Whatever the gender of the participants, all pornography is an imitation of the male-female, conqueror-victim paradigm, and almost all of it actually portrays or implies enslaved women and master."


So, a female dom is porn because she is taking on a male-gendered role in porn?

How is this different than claiming that females embody some other gender stereotype - that females who are bosses are "masculine" and therefore perpetuate sexism by assuming the role of "master" to "slave" in a workplace?

A female who chooses to make porn that begins from the pov of a female who makes the decisions in the sexual relationship, without any S/M as part of it - if it graphically depicts those people - is it porn?

If the people involved only have sex standing up, or lying sideways- is it porn?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #330)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 04:13 PM

336. those are not my words. you declared that steinem did not have a firm position. i disagreed

 

with you and provided her words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #336)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 05:24 PM

344. and I asked you to explain how those words made sense

within different parameters.

I didn't ask you to post a quote.

I asked you to think for yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #320)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 04:28 PM

337. Dworkin actually went much further

 

and rolled off the rails into (literally) paranoid insanity.

Dworkin actually argued that the nature of sexual intercourse - necessary to propagate mammalian species - was some sort of plot to subjugate women because it necessarily involved penetration of the female by the male. Charles Darwin is, I assure you, laughng himself into sickness in the afterlife as we speak.

Disown your screeching idiots will make make more converts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #337)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 04:59 PM

340. the view of female as submissive is cultural

the argument about submission in sex is cultural - patriarchal - it accepts that what is simply is rather than acknowledging the cultural construct that created it - and those constructs are religion and property - and, with property, primogeniture.

Primogeniture itself was a construct of religiously derived cultural views of females - before we had scientific knowledge, people assumed the genesis story was true (some, idiotically, in spite of all biological evidence that denies this, still do.) The belief in the homunculus was part of this religious belief in the "closer to god" view of males and the "closer to dirt" view of females.

what we know from our primate ancestors is that both males and females lived in communities of non-related and related same and different sex homo erectus, etc. - about 100 to 150 in a community. hunter gatherer societies that still exist demonstrate far greater egalitarian relationships than those societies that hoard goods and property and assign those goods to individuals rather than the community. some are matrilineal some are patrilineal - we don't have just one cultural model from the past - and those that are matrilineal have greater sexual freedom for females because, again, property or goods are not dispensed by a male who controls a female's sexuality - the male that is important for children is the uncle, not the father. that doesn't mean it's not culturally possible to have mother/father/children egalitarian relationships - but this is tied to economic parity and legal parity - not anatomy.

because of male anatomy, we know females were not monogamous (the size and shape of the penis and scrotum.) because of our lack of sexual dimorphism, we know humans did not evolve with males keeping harems (tho, culturally, that did evolve - after the fact - and with laws that circumscribed women's rights based, again, upon religions.)

our closest genetic relatives, common and bonobo chimpanzees, have two very different cultures that seem to have evolved based upon the level of competition for food - not among the community, but with other mammals.

both species of chimpanzees have females who are sexually promiscuous. one is matrilineal. the other is patrilineal. the species (bonobo) with a matrilineal community structure have members of that community having sex in various combinations all the time - not simply when a female is fertile. They are bisexual - all of them. Sex is used to deal with community tension rather than smacking the shit out of one another.

common chimps - females have sex with many males - but only when they are fertile and the goal of this sexual activity is not just to conceive but to confuse paternity to insure an offspring will not be attacked by jealous males who kill offspring to bring females back into estrus (because that female would begin to ovulate again, soon, with the end of breastfeeding.)

....which makes me wonder if this is where some of the deep seated weirdness about females breastfeeding in public comes from, but who knows.

we don't know exactly what sort of community proto-humans had - but we do know, again, that it was more egalitarian than what came after and it was not one in which females were subjugated by male desire - females had agency to choose sexual liasons.

this is also why human females do not display when they are fertile - because females had sex for pleasure - not just for reproduction.

I hope the Pope's head is exploding about now. Humans did not evolve in a way that they had sex merely for procreation.

because humans, like bonobos, have females who engage in sexual activity beyond the times when they are fertile, it's a pretty good guess that females and males used sex for social cohesion - whether it was the bond between one man and a woman, or a woman and her friends and neighbors... the point, the major point - is that females did not evolve as sexually submissive.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #340)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 06:31 PM

348. You will never hear one fucking peep from the DU "feminists"

 

about the real issues like access to contraception and the Paycheck Protection Act. Ever. They are consumed wiith the non-issues that exist only within their bubble. So sad, so bad,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #348)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 06:41 PM

350. hey DU "feminists". we will never say a peep about contraceptives and payact. bad and sad us....

 

this man has declared us du "feminists" only talk about non issues. what a man he fuckin is.... rah, feminist you, hifi for showing us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #348)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 06:42 PM

351. More smearing. Never gets old, does it? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:09 PM

100. The media are backing Romney

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:14 PM

107. Are "RadFems" the same as "FemiNazis"?

 

Pretty scary, those RadFems.

"The Devil can so completely assume the human form, when he wants to deceive us, that we may well lie with what seems to be a woman, of real flesh and blood, and yet all the while 'tis only the Devil in the shape of a woman. 'Tis the same with women, who may think that a man is in bed with them, yet 'tis only the Devil; and...the result of this connection is oftentimes an imp of darkness, half mortal, half devil...." (Martin Luther)

"The key in terms of mental ability is chess. There's never been a woman Grand Master chess player. Once you get one, then I'll buy some of the feminism..." (Pat Robertson)

"All wickedness is but little to the wickedness of a woman." (Apocrypha. Ecclesiasticus 7:26)

"Women...have but small and narrow chests, and broad hips, to the end that they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children."
(Martin Luther)

"To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion or empire, above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature; contumely to God, a thing most contrarious to his revealed will and approved ordinance, and finally it is the subversion of good order, of all equity and justice." (John Knox, Scottish Presbyterian leader. First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women-pamphlet published 1558, the first year of Elizabeth I’s reign.

"Robertson) chastised women legislators who support no-fault divorce laws that he says encourage men to split. 'Any woman who votes for no-fault divorce is like a turkey voting for Thanksgiving,' Robertson said, paraphrasing a conservative commentator." (The State-Record, Columbia, SC,June 28, 1992)

"Most of these feminists are radical, frustrated lesbians, many of them, and man-haters, and failures in their relationships with men, and who have declared war on the male gender. The Biblical condemnation of feminism has to do with its radical philosophy and goals. That's the bottom line." (Jerry Falwell)

"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." (Rush Limbaugh, "The Way Things Ought to Be" (1994 edition)

"Nothing about contraception should be taught in schools. There is no question that it will encourage sexual activity." (Phyllis Schlafly, New York Times, 10/17/92)

"You can't get into negotiations with the feminists because you will lose. They will slit your throat. They have no sense of fair play or compromise." (Phyllis Schlafly, National Affairs Briefing, 8/92)

“Nature doth paint them further to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble and foolish; and experience hath declared them to be unconstant, variable, cruel, and lacking the spirit of counsel.”
(John Knox, Scottish Presbyterian leader. From title of pamphlet The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, 1558.

"[The] feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." (Fundraising letter from Pat Robertson that was an in-kind contribution to the Iowa Committee to Stop ERA, as reported in The Washington Post, August 23, 1993)

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period." (Federal News Service, Sept. 11, 1992, quoting a Robertson newsletter.)

"Why are so many marriages falling apart? Why is the divorce rate so high? ...Why is there such a tragedy in marriage?...Now the basic answer to the basic [problem of marriages today is a question of leadership. The wife actually makes the husband the head of the household and she looks to him and she says 'now you pray, and I'm going to pray for you that the Lord will speak to you." (Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, May 22, 1986.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #107)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:18 PM

111. can i steal this for hof? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #111)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:22 PM

115. Feel free. But, pray, don't use it "radically".

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #115)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:29 PM

124. laughed out loud, really. ah... i love women. they are the funniest and

 

there was a study that said.... well, fuck it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #107)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:25 PM

119. I think I love you.

I hope you don't mind.

I'm a "radfem" myself and so, by definition, I hate men and want to...consume them. That ancient trope of "female emasculates the male" comes into play here.

Well, I'll just love you from afar and damned my reputation!

Don't worry. I'm about to be too broke to stalk.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #119)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:30 PM

126. Just as long as you keep your place and avoid carrying garden shears.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #126)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:35 PM

131. Waaaaaahhhhhh. I have brown thumb.

No garden shears for me. I kill plastic plants. I wish I were kidding. They die from the dust. I live in the desert. I'd love to garden but I take pity on the poor plants.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:20 PM

113. RadFems sense my power, and seek my essence. N/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #113)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:29 PM

123. I think the question is...

Do you deny them your essence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #123)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:57 PM

140. Yes, I do like RadFems, but I deny them my essence. N/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #113)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:31 PM

127. .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:24 PM

117. Harmony Blue seems to have run like his ass was on fire and his hair was catching

 

For my next impression, Jesse Owens!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #117)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:27 PM

120. harmony blue appears to have discovered this

board isn't quite so comfortable for his type as he thought.

Surprise!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #120)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:32 PM

129. I'm still wondering where this came from

 

Reading his history, he seems like a decent enough fellow.

Guess he derped when he should have hurped?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #129)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:38 PM

133. The 'tells' were there.

I saw if from the first post of his I read.

My BS meter may be a bit more finely tuned, is all. I have, unfortunately, more practice. My livelihood, and occasionally my life, depended on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #120)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:37 PM

132. exactly. too much lately, this was the wrong place, wrong time. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:28 PM

122. I haven't encountered any truly radical feminists since grad school in the north east.

Back then they went by RadSepFems.

I'm not sure which voices you consider RadFems.

The whole equal pay for equal work, access to medial care, procedures, and pharmaceuticals, and generally being treated equally to men is fairly mainstream.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:41 PM

134. RADGOP is more like it. Get the fuck away from women, sick bastards.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:47 PM

136. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:51 PM

138. Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh are ...

RadFems? Who'd a thunk it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:59 PM

141. goofy... good luck with that

 

whatever your agenda is... idiot

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:12 PM

145. Right.

?t=1339899045

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 11:24 PM

159. Well . . . no.

 

I think there are a few "rad-fems" out there that could be characterized as you do . . . perhaps . . . anyway, one could make that case if one wanted to.

But they in particular and feminism in general get ZERO exposure in our media. No way can one blame feminism, which hardly gets heard from these days, for the success that the GOP has had in demeaning women's issues.

That's blaming the victim, blaming the women (and men) working for equal rights for the failure to enact equal rights.

You have a right to your opinion, but your post seems to be picking a fight rather than searching for answers . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 11:39 PM

161. This is the stupidest fucking post I've ever read on DU. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyberswede (Reply #161)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 11:48 PM

164. nu uh... bet you find one even more stupid. lol

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002817409#post148



ok, i cheated. i already read your other post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyberswede (Reply #161)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:00 AM

178. Trufax.

And we all know that's a contest with a lot of competition, so he had a high bar to hit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyberswede (Reply #161)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 05:25 AM

197. so hard to choose

we've have a few this week that I'd put in that category.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyberswede (Reply #161)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:27 AM

245. Nah, it's only like the twelfth stupidest. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:16 AM

167. Heeere's the Poipetrators!

RadFeminist LibChurch VaginoBullies intimidating the majority of female registered voters with their extreme rhetoric!

Please! Please! Ladies! Tone it Down, willya?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NBachers (Reply #167)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:25 AM

171. i am scared mommy,make it stop. are these our RADnuns. i love me my radnuns. lol

 

thanks for this. lovely women

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:18 AM

168. the last half dozen living second wave feminists aren't exactly setting the public agenda

 

They are certainly alienating, to most everyone - but not exactly influential.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #168)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:40 AM

176. What a colossally bigoted (and ignorant) statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #176)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:49 AM

181. It would be bigoted to scapegoat them...

 

but I stand by my statement that the remainder of those who adhere exclusively to second wave principles are both alienating and not influencing the public discourse in the way suggested by the OP in any capacity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #181)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:23 AM

187. What are those exclusive second wave principles?

Could you provide a list of some of "those who adhere" who appear in the media? Do they appear in Canada or the US?

This is amazing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #187)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:47 AM

189. Those typically associated with separatist feminism

 

The present media standard bearer if you will is arguably briton Julie Bindel who writes for the Guardian. Although most of her notoriety is a result of distasteful comments directed at the transgendered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #189)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 08:24 AM

209. There are fringes, but mainstream of radical feminism

is no such thing. It's been a sound theory of the patriarchy and conformity to gender roles as a primary source of oppression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #209)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:04 PM

261. But that isn't what we are talking about...

 

It isn't as though patriarchy and gender roles are incompatible with contemporary feminism. Liberal or radical. While separatist attitudes had their day in the 1970's, and are held by spectacularly few today. I believe I have only met two, both of whom are pushing 70 if they are still alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #189)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 08:29 AM

211. Yes Julie gets a lot of press here in the US.

snorkety, snork, snork, snork


I know you are not really serious but the question is why are you posting such drivel on DU?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #211)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:03 AM

235. Because it's all they fucking have to keep beating that dead horse with. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #211)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:05 PM

262. Because I am fascinated by ideology

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #189)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:44 AM

249. Julie Bindel is one of "the last half dozen living second wave feminists"? She's 50

I don't know where the hell you've got hold of your idea of 'second wave feminism', but (a) it's not 'separatist feminism', (b) there are plenty of people who were part of it who are still alive, (c) Bindel is too young to be one of them. Yes, she makes many distasteful comments. That doesn't mean you get to associate her with whatever movement you want to discredit.

Here's a look at second wave feminism in the UK - notice the complete absence of Bindel, or her ideas: http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/70sfeminism/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #249)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:37 PM

315. exclusively no... atleast not in its day.

 

But separatist feminism was part of the second wave while it is unambiguously not part of more contemporary thought and the self-identifying second-wavers who tend to be disparaging of third wave, contemporary, "sex positive", "fun feminism" or whatever tend to exhibit separatist beliefs. In the 1970's when this sort of had its day it was primarily a francophone and American affair, although most of those running with it today are in the UK such as Bindel and other characters like Sheila Jeffreys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #315)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:56 PM

319. i think many do not understand what the real divide is. many feel the fun fem is about individual

 

and not women as a whole. and a part of the 3rd wave is ALL people, before women, pushing womens concerns and interest behind all other people and groups.

totally simplifying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #168)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:46 AM

180. I can assure you there are tens of

thousands of us second wave feminists still living and loving and if we're alienating reactionaries like you, well, who gives a flying fuck?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marybourg (Reply #180)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:59 AM

183. i would suggest many of us that did not get to participate in second wave

 

Have the same beliefs as second wave and even have accusatory call outs at being second wave. Further, there are a hell of a lot of third wave that are preaching second wave. My 20 and 24 yr old nieces. A lot of the feminists I put in hof, young women. What are we calling them since they are not old enough for the second wave, but have the same beliefs? I know. Radfems, lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #183)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:18 AM

185. From your extensive posting history...

 

I would characterize you as firmly third wave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #185)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:26 AM

188. you are funny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #185)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:00 AM

234. well, sen. i am flabbergasted. du does not do that to me often, anymore

 

interesting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:19 AM

169. Let me guess, a jury let this stand?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #169)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:50 AM

177. I think the 'victims' are doing pretty well in this instance. This started as another "OMFG I can't

 

believe I'm reading this here" thread and now it's evolved into a model of how to scare these insecure pencil dicks so much that they all ran back to their mommy's basements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #169)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:28 AM

246. Given the demographics of the site I'm more disappointed than surprised. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:27 AM

173. because "vagina"

is extreme RadFem rhetoric or hyperbole!

right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:35 AM

175. No

they aren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:57 AM

182. Harmony, I'll give you this. You've managed to scare your "men's rights" buddies into mass hysteria.

 

They're climbing all over each other trying to be the first to denounce you and your offense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #182)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 06:43 AM

201. And WHERE exactly are all these alleged "mens rights buddies", then?

There are probably as many actual "mras" on this board as there are actual "radfems" or testicle-bottlers.

You know, as long as we're busy pointing out flat out ridiculous bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #201)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:59 PM

321. You are aware that anybody can browse groups, right?

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #321)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 03:13 PM

327. Yes. So I ask again. WHERE are all these "mens rights buddies"?


You show me some actual evidence, with links, of which people are claiming to be "mens rights" people. Because otherwise, your accusation is crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:16 AM

184. What's a RadFeminist?

and where is their "extreme rhetoric" getting the kind of play that Rush Limbaugh does?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:19 AM

186. Is it too late for the popcorn?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GObamaGO (Reply #186)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:29 AM

247. Here, I have a little bit left in my bowl, have some :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Original post)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:49 AM

190. For those of you who think radical feminists are like unicorns, wiki is your friend

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #190)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 04:25 AM

194. Well I'll be...

I still don't get a unicorn?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #194)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 05:08 AM

196. Just go to Amazon like everyone else

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #190)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 07:21 AM

203. Radical Feminism is real

The hostility, along with disbelief, that they exist and influence politics is not surprising. What I pointed out is true, and I stand by opinion that this may end up becoming a larger problem than anyone wants to admit. Minority groups are very capable of influencing the political climate in our country (eg Right Wing Christian groups).

It is also a big mistake to label a 2nd wave feminist as a 3rd wave, as it is considered an insult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #203)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 07:58 AM

207. Radical does not mean hostile

The are called radical feminists because they take the extreme position that gender roles trump class, race, and economics as oppressive elements to women and they seek to transform society into a gender neutral culture. George Carlin summarized them best when he said, "I've noticed that most of these feminists are white, middle class women. They don't give a shit about black women's problems, they don't care about Latino women, all they're interested in is their own reproductive freedom and their pocketbooks."

I'm not exactly sure in what you were alluding, but 2nd wave feminist =/ radical feminist. There are plenty of 2nd wave feminists who are not radical feminists.

So yes, they do exist and have for decades, but no they aren't any more of a drag on the Democratic Party than the birthers are to the GOP, or any other group that takes extreme positions because most people are smart enough to figure out that their views don't represent the views of the mainstream. If anything they undermine the women's movement itself as Betty Friedan and other feminists have pointed out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #207)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 08:21 AM

208. What is so extreme?

It's been mainstream feminist theory for 40 years....

And it has been added to, this is not some monolithic movement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #208)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 08:32 AM

212. By mainstream, I mean in the sense of the Democratic Party as a whole...

not just the feminist subset of the party. And I wouldn't even characterize those views as mainstream within the feminist movement. Those views divided the second wave feminists, who never again rejoined. So what can be called mainstream greatly depends on which side of the divide you're on.

Just sayin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #212)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 08:34 AM

213. huh? come again, I'm not getting it..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #213)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 08:49 AM

219. I'm not sure what part you're not getting

I'll cover both bases.

Radical means they take extreme positions. It's part of the definition. If they didn't take extreme positions, they wouldn't be called 'radical' feminists, no?

As far as the second part goes, it's just a matter of history that the 2nd wave feminists were divided by the radical feminists. For further reading...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_Sex_Wars

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #219)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 08:55 AM

221. That is not what Radical means in terms of Radical Feminism.

Radical means they worked outside the political structures to affect change. To eliminate the patriarchy (not men) and did not conform to gender roles.

Gloria Steinem considers herself a radical feminist.


There have been many divides amongst feminists, that does not mean that men get to choose a side and tell us which side women should be on, get it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #221)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 09:20 AM

226. I don't agree with your definition

It isn't historically correct as I've already pointed out.

I'm well aware of which feminists were on which side of the divide. And from my perspective, it looks as if you're trying to tell everyone else which side they should be on. As such I don't care to discuss this matter further with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #226)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 09:22 AM

228. I think you need to do some more research

I won't expect you to come back and tell me how wrong you are, since you have already ended the conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #228)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:09 AM

240. Come on now, he even quoted Carlin.

You must respect his authoritah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #226)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:39 AM

248. it is always interesting to hear men, carlin, define women. what they think and what they care about

 

maybe this post, carlin and others is very much the heart of this whole OP.

i thought it pretty clear there was nothing radical about radfems. then i see, you see them as extreme outside fringe. men have issues with radfems, obviously carlin too, cause it challenges the whole gender role playing used to dominate and control.

no surprises here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #219)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:49 AM

250. why wouldnt it make sense there would be different areas in feminism. some more interested in one

 

area than others.

just like people tend to a career in one area rather than another. it is a uniqueness of individual. all areas to be addressed. and each does their part.

just like some are interested in animal rights, other children rights, other environmental concerns. we choose our area of interest and belief and put our energy behind.

i never felt these areas of feminism was in battle against, but was all a part of the whole.

maybe people outside the movement ought to not try and create divide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #212)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 08:48 AM

217. Carlin was a comedian and

the quote is definitely not a good summary.

Jeez, where do people get this shit and why do they believe it? I am guessing you like the quote because a guy said it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #217)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 09:02 AM

223. I've seen the whole act

If you have a different summary, feel free to offer it. Personally I find substantive discussion enlightening, but YMMV.

I like the quote because it's shockingly realistic. I believe it because it's not just his opinion, but also the opinion of others I doubt you'd be able to impeach. Furthermore, I find that inferring that my use of Carlin's quote because he's a guy, is well....sexist. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's the epitome of sexism. Again, YMMV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #223)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 09:20 AM

227. A "different summary" would involve

my personal life experience in activism and advocacy and I have no plans to write an auto-biography.

The things people will believe from the highly successful right wing propaganda machine, and that includes some otherwise smart people, is just stunning. Carlin was a comedian and trying to be provocative. I doubt he would of said that if he had dreamed that anyone would be quoting it as fact several decades later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #227)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 09:31 AM

231. You evidently don't know Carlin very well

Carlin could have given a shit if he was ever quoted or not. As it was he made the statement in the 90's, decades after he had been quoted on most everything else for decades.

And I didn't ask for an auto-biography, or a book, or even a paragraph. I asked for a summary, which I provided and you evidently disagreed, but you also evidently won't provide a reason. Now you further wish to discredit what I said based on your labeling it "right wing propaganda".

As you apparently have no intention of anything approaching meaningful discussion in favor of condescension and the worst sort of ad hominem bs, I have no intention of discussing anything with you further, ever.

Good day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #223)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 11:01 AM

255. you are going off a stereotypical white middle age mans definition of women and IGNORING

 

what women are saying to you, which would be the stereotypical behavior of a fuckin middle aged white man



perfect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #255)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:49 PM

283. Defending sexism with more sexism.

Right on time and highly predictable I might add.

Stay classy.

Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #283)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:00 PM

292. to suggest that a white man defining the womans movement, what we think and what we believe

 

is hardly being sexist

and to suggest it with me CLEARLY adding stereotypical, to make a point is using sexism to argue sexism is disingenuous.

diverting argument though, is typical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #292)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:26 PM

374. Here's what I find trully ironic

For someone who complains incessantly about others using obvious sexism and attempts at humiliation to make you "shut up", you certainly have no problem with both supporting the practice (diversion noted) and using it yourself (which you did whether you admit it or not) when the tables are turned. I find your attempts at dismissal quite lame, but not at all unexpected.

Furthermore it's pretty hard to divert an argument that you never made in the first place, unless you count ad hominem and personal attacks which I addressed directly.

While reading your closed minded barbs has been at least as much fun as usual, I have better things to do for now so you'll have to find another playmate to play your ad nauseum games. Feel free to have the usual last word, as I realize how important such things are to you.

Chow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #374)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:38 PM

377. are you suggesting we should put more weight in what a man says defining women, than what women say?

 

not even an educated man on the subject. but a mere man's observation from afar? a comedian?

this is your argument. and cause i dare to disagree, this is what you give me?

really, this is funny to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #203)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 08:27 AM

210. "It is also a big mistake to label a 2nd wave feminist as a 3rd wave, as it is considered an insult.

Really? Do tell us how you came to that conclusion,Mr. Expert On Feminism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #210)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 08:39 AM

215. How about this..

Stop fucking labeling us!

Who the fuck do these people think they are!

Second wavers and third wavers are not at eachothers throats. There are disagreements, just like there have been since the beginning of feminism.

My goodness, you had the feminists who were religious and feminists who rejected it. You had feminists who thought the states were the way to go to get the vote, and others who felt only a federal amendment would work.

My goodness, I guess feminists just aren't suppose to be able to have fringes or differences of opinions to move forward.

This whole line of second wave v third wave, it the biggest effort of divisiveness, to slow and dismantle the movement, to destroy feminism.

And it works, cause we got the men telling us we are all against one another. Fuck that shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #215)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 09:00 AM

222. We are the Borg!

Unlike other movements, who manage to be nuanced and textured without being told one wave is the enemy ot the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #215)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:12 AM

241. Don't forget about all the women who can't stop being fascsinated by this idiotic 'wave' crap.

Yeah, differences of opinions among people in political movements... it's so SHOCKING!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #203)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 09:23 AM

229. It comes down to "so what?"

How on earth is this the most important thing to you? Even if -- just for the sake of argument -- we take your characterization at face value, your prescribed course of action bears no resemblance to what happens in real life.

Case in point, the New Black Panther Party. I've never seen enough of them in one place to half-fill a schoolbus, but teabaggers think the president is just hankering to put NBPP stalwarts on every street corner (after grabbing their guns).

It's a small group of ranting cranks, and they treat it like an army of brownshirts. No rational arguments and data analysis at work there, except by the people milking fears.

Conservative spinmeisters have a track record. They will take anything, selectively edit and add scary music, and pump it out without any regard to facts or rationality if they think it will help them win. When there's nothing for them to take, they'll just make something up.

What in the name of Cthulhu's slimy butt makes you think "radfems" would be a factor in the election?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #203)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:06 AM

238. because it is all about your porn, and putting women in the back of the bus, isnt it. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #190)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:03 AM

236. i know. i started hearing ACCUSATION (as if an insult) of radfem. wiki'ed it and ah man,

 

radfem isnt all the radical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #236)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:59 PM

291. yes, I'm not sure how anyone can take it as a pejorative

Considering it's a widely accepted term and feminists have been using it for decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #291)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:02 PM

293. Because sometimes, it is intended that way.

Often, even, on this board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #293)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:06 PM

300. Probably because of the ideas that radical feminists promote

Most of which are deplored by other feminists, much less anyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #300)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:09 PM

302. i feel whiplash with your posts. that is so not true and simply wrong. but,

 

dont let truth bite you on the ass, let a white male comedian educate you on feminism. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #302)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:34 PM

313. So you choose to ignore all the feminists who take issue with radical feminism?

Perhaps you don't believe they are "real" feminists. I've heard that one before. Or perhaps you're just completely ignorant of the history of the cause you claim to support and like to read your own posts as validation of your own poorly supported opinions.

Either way I have a simple rule which I run with. 'Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean I'm wrong." That's why I'm extremely careful of calling other people wrong and rarely do it unless I've offered up proof. As far as those who claim others are wrong, yet offer zero evidence to support that assertion, I just write them off as shit stirrers who have little interest in meaningful discussion.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”
-- Bertrand Russell

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #313)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 03:00 PM

322. 3rd wave Natasha Walter: I am ready to admit that I was entirely wrong."

 

One email in particular stuck out, a message from a 17-year-old girl called Carly Whiteley. She said that she was "starting to think it was time to give up and sit in silence while my friends put on a porno and grunted about ­whatever blonde, airbrushed piece of plastic was in Nuts this week. What you said gave me back the will not to give in . . . It's nice to see someone else saying it, makes me feel like less of a prude-type oddball."

The "prude" reference was key. In Living Dolls, Walter takes on the ­notion that, for example, stripping and pole dancing are ­empowering, ­liberating choices; instead, she ­suggests, it has become increasingly difficult for young women to opt out of this culture, to take any path other than that which leads inexorably to fake nails, fake tan and, finally, fake breasts. And, if they do, there are ­serious social penalties.

"I was surprised by the attitudes of the girls I interviewed," she says, "who seemed to feel that they would be mocked if they protested within their peer groups. You know, when I was at university [in the 80s] it was OK to be annoyed about ­sexism, to take it quite seriously – if you argued about it, it didn't make you the ­subject of ­mockery. Even if you didn't ­particularly identify yourself as a feminist, you could choose where you wanted to be on a spectrum, and you could still say, 'I really don't want Page 3 in the ­common room,' or, 'I ­really hate the idea of porn' . . . I was surprised when I was ­interviewing young women that they felt ­uncomfortable engaging in that way. Of course, a lot them would say, 'It's fine, we can choose whether to [interact with the sexist culture] or not,' and then you dig a little deeper, and you realise that it is more ­problematic than that."

The focus on popular culture, on the pervasive web of sexist imagery and behaviour, is a big shift away from Walter's first book, The New Feminism, which came out in 1998. Then she ­argued that feminists should ­concentrate on specific political, ­social and financial aims; in Living Dolls she writes that she felt that, at that time, we could put aside the feminist ­arguments that "centred on private lives: how women made love, how they dressed, whom they desired . . . I believed that we only had to put in place the conditions for equality for the remnants of the old-fashioned sexism in our culture to wither away. I am ready to admit that I was entirely wrong."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #313)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 03:02 PM

323. ALL the feminist that have issue? the thing. the last handful of months i have been doing massive

 

research on feminism, the issues of waves, and who is saying what. i do not see MASSIVE disapproval or declaimers against the radfem. if nothing else i am seeing a huge rejection of the sex positiive feminist and a lot of the third wave. the very people that started this saying, hey wait, lets rethink.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #291)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:02 PM

295. simple enough for me. agree. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink