HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Wed Jul 22, 2015, 02:21 PM
Number of posts: 58

About Me

Just me.

Journal Archives

Yes! You got it! You are a genius!

That is exactly what I was trying to say and it just was not coming out right! Just let anyone and everyone in! Don't vet anyone - how stupid of me to have suggested that!

There is no way to differentiate "normal" people from homicidal maniacs, and the one thing they share is religion, not race.

The one thing they share, with me, at least, is that they are members of humanity.

I can think of many things I do share with you. We both speak English, for a start. I would hope that no one would exclude me from something on that basis because of your rather off-putting philosophy.

You do realize that your words are the very essence of bigotry, right?

Most Muslims are not homicidal international terrorists but virtually all homicidal international terrorists are Muslims.


As I am sure you are aware and would agree: most men are not rapists, but virtually all rapists are men.

Given this blatantly obvious fact, what action do you recommend?

Surely there is some way to cure the infection of rapists among us ...
Posted by MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy | Sat Nov 14, 2015, 04:22 PM (0 replies)

sad to see no response to your post

I can't apologize for some of the comments here, but I feel ashamed for their authors.
Posted by MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy | Sat Nov 14, 2015, 12:35 PM (0 replies)

how do you tell which are which?

Why, do they all look alike to you?
Posted by MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy | Sat Nov 14, 2015, 01:03 AM (1 replies)

This is absolutely boilerplate anti-choice rhetoric

and I am quite surprised at the number of people who seem unfamiliar with it!

Of course, it's usually spouted by people whose ancestors were never enslaved. To get a descendant of enslaved persons to put it out there - they must be beside themselves with the thrill.

It is part of the litany that includes the assertion that the only difference between a fetus and a human being is "location location location".

That difference is then, of course, dismissed as inconsequential. Inside a woman's body, inside a Toyota Corolla, it's all the same thing.

And, of course, the next thing we can expect from him (if it hasn't come already; I haven't kept careful track) is the tale about how Planned Parenthood is in the business of genocide, targetting African-Americans for extinction by abortion ...
Posted by MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy | Sun Oct 25, 2015, 11:00 PM (1 replies)

I'm in my sixties

I have no difficulty at all "getting it".

You, unfortunately, don't seem to have "got" what either Wente or the author she was disagreeing with was saying, given that nothing you are saying appears to have anything at all to do with anything either of them said.

Just for future ref, dismissing someone's ideas and ascribing emotions to them based on their age, even someone right-wing and anti-feminist, is not really wise.
Posted by MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy | Sun Oct 25, 2015, 05:14 PM (1 replies)

I find this an odd charge


Wente was born in 1950 and at university by the late 60s. I assure you, we who were there had all the sex we wanted, whether that was none or nightly one-night stands.

Observing the sex lives of today's student-age population, I find little to be bitter about, myself, so I can't think what Wente would have. Much as I dislike what she had to say, I would not characterize it as you have.

Basically, she will hop on whatever horse is convenient, to take a charge at feminists and feminism. This is just the latest.

And again, to know what she is talking about, it is important to read the piece she is purporting to critique. Wente is not the originator of the bad-sex thesis she is critiquing; she is rejecting the thesis of the young feminist who wrote it:


Posted by MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy | Sun Oct 25, 2015, 04:33 PM (1 replies)

it's worth reading the piece that is Wente's subject

rather than just her slant on it. Coincidentally, I read it a few days ago.


So it was only natural that when feminism was resurrected by young women creating a new movement, it was self-consciously sex friendly, insouciant in its approach to the signs and symbols of objectification. No one would ever mistake these feminists for humorless harridans or frigid dick-rejectors. But the underpinning philosophy had shifted slightly. Sex positivity was originally a term used to describe a theory of women, sex, and power; it advocated for any kind of sexual behavior — from kink to celibacy to conscious power play — that women might enjoy on their own terms and not on terms dictated by a misogynistic culture. Now it has become shorthand for a brand of feminism that was a cheerleader for, not a censor of, sex — all sex. Feminism’s sexual focus narrowed in on one issue: coercion and violence. Sex that took place without clear consent wasn’t even sex; it was rape.

In this line of thinking, sex after yes, sex without violence or coercion, is good. Sex is feminist. And empowered women are supposed to enjoy the hell out of it. In fact, Alexandra Brodsky, a Yale law student and founder of anti-rape organization Know Your IX, tells me that she has heard from women who feel that “not having a super-exciting, super-positive sex life is in some ways a political failure.”

Except that young women don’t always enjoy sex — and not because of any innately feminine psychological or physical condition. The hetero (and non-hetero, but, let’s face it, mostly hetero) sex on offer to young women is not of very high quality, for reasons having to do with youthful ineptitude and tenderness of hearts, sure, but also the fact that the game remains rigged.

It’s rigged in ways that go well beyond consent. Students I spoke to talked about “male sexual entitlement,” the expectation that male sexual needs take priority, with men presumed to take sex and women presumed to give it to them. They spoke of how men set the terms, host the parties, provide the alcohol, exert the influence. Male attention and approval remain the validating metric of female worth, and women are still (perhaps increasingly) expected to look and fuck like porn stars — plucked, smooth, their pleasure performed persuasively. Meanwhile, male climax remains the accepted finish of hetero encounters; a woman’s orgasm is still the elusive, optional bonus round. Then there are the double standards that continue to redound negatively to women: A woman in pursuit is loose or hard up; a man in pursuit is healthy and horny. A woman who says no is a prude or a cock tease; a man who says no is rejecting the woman in question. And now these sexual judgments cut in two directions: Young women feel that they are being judged either for having too much sex, or for not having enough, or enough good, sex. Finally, young people often have very drunk sex, which in theory means subpar sex for both parties, but which in practice is often worse (like, physically worse) for women.

Wente can maunder on about the innate nature of men and women all she likes, but unless and until those factors - yeah, the entitled men one and the sexist culture one - are eliminated, we do not have the conditions for an experiment to prove or disprove her thesis.
Posted by MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy | Sun Oct 25, 2015, 02:26 PM (2 replies)

thank you

for raising the right (and blatantly obvious) questions.

The issue is exactly the same as with visual pornography that portrays women as deserving of (or enjoying) pain and degradation, or portrays children as seductive ... etc.

The ideas really don't stay in a quarantined compartment of the mind absorbing them where they have no effect on that person or the people who cross his path in real life.

As with most such things, the only effective solution lies in addressing the attitudes that lead to how technology is used, since trying to control the use of technology is essentially a fool's task.
Posted by MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy | Wed Sep 16, 2015, 10:34 AM (1 replies)

recruiting ... what?


The images are not selling "beauty, sexuality and a specific look". They are selling women.

(They're under 22? Seriously now, were any of us here present so stupid at 20 or even 18 that we either behaved like this or thought this behaviour reasonable? Are there not 20-year-old women today who simply know better? My goodness, these women are enrolled in postsecondary education. Obviously a waste of someone's money.)

I keep wondering when the Greeks are going to send the diplomatic note demanding their alphabet back.

Bringing the Elgin marbles home would be nice, but surely rescuing their language from these fools is a little more urgent.
Posted by MsJaneFuzzyWuzzy | Tue Aug 18, 2015, 04:01 AM (2 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »