The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Vagina.
Ah, but the boss' wife is boss. So the locus of the oppression of wymins is the wymins selbst.The cycle of life is anarchy!
what about the manarchists and their blackblocs lol
Are you going to kick me out of the club house? Glad we've stopped talking about physics, and moved on to the ever amusing politics of biology.
Not exactly sure of the tone in which this pronouncement is being made. But it highlights one of my questions about anarchism: by abolishing public authority, we resign ourselves to private oppression. Parents over children, men over women, etc. I'm sure there's been much ink spilled over this issue by scholars of anarchist philosophy, but I have trouble seeing how a pint-sized anarchist effectively liberates himself from the tyranny of abusive parents without some help from the larger community. Which in turn implicates community power structures and authority, and so on etc etc.
Yeah, REAL anarchist men kill themselves -- because men are the problem.But wait... how are those men born? Don't they come from women? I blame the origin, so I think women are to blame for men's oppression of women. Women create the men in the first instance.Don't want more men, ladies? Oppressed by men? Then stop your fucking!
IOZ is just an ally helping his lady friends out.
Picador--Abuse of children and women is a feature of western cultures and some others as well yet there were Native American tribes who had no “leaders” and where parents never punished children and women were not treated as second class people, in fact men, children and women were pretty much equals. Nobody is saying Anarchy is going to solve all problems, just that it might be better than what we have now. Not that I think anarchy is going to be adopted in this insane culture of macho nacho nutballs.
But who will stop the oppression of bottoms by tops in anarchy, hmmm?The Dull Sycophant
Oxtrot's relentless stupidity is oppressing me.
I say we write a new constitution with only one instruction: every kid that pops gets a semi-automatic and case of ammo. Power comes out of the barrel of a gun? That'll level the playing field.
You're being very un-dude.
Nonny 10:03, your eternal projection and bad guesses at what I'm saying... they oppress you more than any words I could type. Look in the mirror when you cast "STUPID!" in some direction. Look there. You'll have your eureka! moment.
states don't oppress people, people oppress people. large organized groups of people oppress their underclasses. the idea that it's ok for ladies, darkies, queers, gypsies, idlers, whathaveyou, to be disproportinately represented in or as underclasses, or that heirarchy is embraced in the first place, is culture. but of course an-archists must also be anti patri-archy, it's right there in the name.
Montag, you just blew my mind... we need to kill all the people! I was just a little behind you, suggesting a universally armed society... The Monsieur is such a poser. As if, when the last dude was exterminated, those ladies wouldn't start oppressing the fatties. Oh shit... did he say disproportionally represented? Now we're regressing to talking about the politics of math. One step forward, two back...
Monsieur, was your post's title inspired in whole or part by Twisty's latest? Jes' askin' - if so, a little link luv wouldn't hurt.
Gabe Ruth, i daresay extinction would rectify most if not all of these concerns.
HUMAN extinction. just to be clear. ;-)
It's a good thing, M'sieur, that you don't let the imp out too often.A little of him goes a long way ...
i don't mind admitting that i don't really understand what it means to be "feminine". (not because i oppose "femininity", just honestly stating that i'm unclear on the concept.) (for that matter, not sure what is meant by "masculine".)so, what is it, exactly?because, on the one hand, if we urge that feminism means women = men (however you want to define "="), then there's an implicit negation of "masculine is bad". that is, implicit acceptance that "masculine" whether in whole or in part is good.if you reject the "equality" view, and suggest that "femininity" is to be preferred, then there's an implicit difference from "masculinity". so, i'm wondering, how do you specify the difference?
hey puppylander, you should watch godard's masculine/feminine, then it all makes sense
I love the fact that people automatically read "antidude" to mean "pro-killing-dudes".
Channelling Irigaray today Ioz?
Everything would be cool if chicks would just stop wearing tube tops and short skirts. Boners are the cause of war.
lucid - are Irigaray Channels anything like Irrigation channels?
"Not exactly sure of the tone in which this pronouncement is being made."Every year or so, IOZ will publish approximately the same post, and invariably a number of regular dudes will assume aloud that he's jus' joshin', 'cos the alternative, I suppose, is so unpalatable.Other predictable responses:(a) launching lengthy nice-guy tirades about some evil woman they knew on the assumption that radical feminists sincerely believe that women are pedestal-occupying saints, as opposed to human beings with human failings and foibles who are capable of the same good and bad acts as yer average dude;(b) bewailing radfem's hostility to the biological essence of men, feigning confusion about women wanting to be men (cows wanting to be sheep, birds mixing with bees!), or otherwise conflating and confusing gender and sex;(c) worrying yourself into a tizzy re what your female overlords will get up to once the revolution is complete (silently hoping it involves anal sex and lotsa submission);(d) mounting deliberately clueless and ahistorical defenses of patriarchy because: child support/alimony/DUKE LACROSSEEEEEEEEEEEE 4EVA;(e) erasing poor and working class women, women of color, lesbians, transfolk when dismissing all radfems as uppity white degree-holding bitches who hates the mens 'cos they're ugly;(f) rape jokes;(g) thinking this has anything to do with "equality";(h) reminding the commentariat that your girlfriend/house slave just loves how oppressed she isto which I say: read a fucking book on the subject, gentlemen. If the manhaters are that threatening to your precious bodily fluids, at least do everyone the courtesy of knowing your enemy rather than making shit up. And if you've deemed the bad ladies unworthy of your time, there's no need to act so scurred.
I assure you sirs and sirsettes, that I am an asshole, and not a dick.are you surprised at my tears, sir?
saurs,sounds a little like an evasion, but understanding that everyone has their own ideas, curious what you personally think feminism is (or is about). i mean, assuming you have your own opinion on it, rather than something from a book.
I'm all in.wait where am i?
What's never occurred to the (dino)Saur(s:ALL dichotomies dehumanize.On that (dino)Saur(s) would probably agree.When men first established the relevant dichotomy, it dehumanized.On that, (dino)Saur(s) would certainly agree.But when women perpetuate that dichotomy, (dino)Saur(s) seems to think that that perpetuation doesn't continue the dehumanization.'Sup with that?
e.l., stfu.ioz, query: so is shakesville anarchical? i mean, they're antidude, right? because i remember them being very, um, archical.
I'm not oppressing you, Stan, you haven't got a womb.
"e.l., stfu."Quite so, guppyblender.The Council of Trent also found that a very effective line of argument.
Would this be the right place to say that Whitney Houston is vastly superior to The Rolling Stones?
speaking of cheesegrater - foodie friday?
e.l., your essential argument, which i/we have heard umpteen times is that, since women are worse misogynists than men, you are therefore not such a misogynist--but it's been established that you are, in fact, quite the misogynist. we get that you don't get it. please, stfu.
That famous dudely tin-ear on display!I say: "you guys are uninformed shitheads."Eerily hears: "one of you men care to explain to me why my politics are ill-conceived or -examined?" *tilts head, twirls golden lock o' hair upon lanky ring-finger, which is empty and definitely longer than the forefinger*I was also sorry to hear puppylander is not a fan of reading. Normally I hear the opposite complaint, namely that as the coven has not formally set its creed to print it is Not Serious Enough for manly consideration.I wouldn't want to "evade" the post that IOZ obviously posted explicitly for me to personally explain myself, or anything.
Misogynists? Fuck me. Say what you will about the tenets of radical feminism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.
Awww IOZ, it's sweet of you to try to make Ethan feel better after he ran home crying into his hanky.
anarchists responding to radfeminism sound like liberals responding to anarchists.
I'd wager most of Monsieur's regular commentariat is not particularly anarchist, Anon @ 3:29pm.The four dudely dudes who got their gladiatorial defensive on are, in no specific order, a woman-hating corporate lawyer cum fagbasher, a liberal defender of good government, a narcissistic gadfly and the gadfly's gadfly.
PL. I'll bite. Having read a lot of feminist texts spanning from the early 1900's to current day, that is as broad a question as can be. 'Feminism' has myriad focii and many strands that outright contradict each other on some issues.One of the core principles, however, is shared with anarchism - namely a horizontal vision of social order.
pimplylandsman:While I admitted to occasional situational misogyny many years ago on the very Slate board which IOZ used to grace, that occasional misogyny does not, so far as I can see, have anything to do with the perpetuation of dichotomy by feminists.If we were to change the context - say to MLK switching his focus from the dichotomy of race to the less exclusive dichotomy of class, you would probably not find any fault with the argument.Would you?
EL is showing off a new word.
EL,There's a false premise in that thar question, namely that MLK, Jr was focused on a racial dichotomy, from which he could switch to a class one.First, MLK was pretty damned clear on class, and second, he was more than reflexively generous to the conditions suffered by all the other groups kept in second classery by the male, white order.As for supposed perpetuation of dichotomy, by feminists: that reads almost as exactly as the so-called logic which informs newly discovered conservatarian color-blindness, now that there are some rich black ball players and musicians. It's an elision, and not much more, on your part.
"i'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars."
saurs, fine rhetoric. perhaps that's what you're here for.me, i'm here for insights beyond the usual. i failed to understand that my purpose and yours are at odds. (assumed you wanted to say something special.) apologies. carry on.
I don't know, JC - I've always thought it's kinda received wisdom that MLK's original focus was race, and that he wouldn't have been shot if he hadn't switched it to class.Regarding your second point, I see the analogy you're making, but I don't accept it as valid.The fact that analogy is the chief modality of Peircean abduction does not mean it's always successful.For example, it leads us to correctly expect that the hypercube, hyperoctahedron, and hypertetrahedron will have analogs in all n-dimensional Euclidean spaces (n > 3), but it does not lead us to expect the existence of the 24-cell in E4 and no other En.
puppylander, you are mistaking me for someone who thinks radical feminism is up for debate.Like, okay, I, find your repeated offers for me to stand up and in a clear voice introduce and explain my new an' novel pet theory to the rest of the students, submit to their deft hands that pet theory for their close examination, erm (howyousay?) generous? But, alas, I must inform you that I am not and have never been a member of your class, ya dig?
"occasional situational misogyny".ha!why am i reminded of an incident this past weekend in the environs of hahvahd?so i had pulled into a gas station. and normally, i'd have stopped at the pump at the head of the line. this time, however, i saw that those pumps were wrapped in red plastic (out of order), so i stopped instead at the first pump. wouldn't you but know it, halfway through pumping, hahvahd kids pull up behind. one jumps out and as he heads to the store, smirkies out a sarcastic "that's a nice place to stop". returned a casual explanation "the first pump's out of order". (were i quicker on my feet, would've added "and so was your comment". but i've my limitations.) anyway, hahvahd boy mumbles a mildly embarassed "oh, is it?", but not quite man enough to proffer apology before scuttling into the store.oh. i know why i'm reminded of it. it's weaseliness.
EL,I've got nothing to prove. I've got nothing to argue with you, if you've got a hyper-intelligence or some parental college expenditure's worth to prove. If it's comedy, a little amusement is all you get.But, anyway, I wasn't making an analogy. I suggested that the underlying logic was similar. As in, "feminists perpetuate the dichotomy of gender" operates according to a logic similar to "black people perpetuate the problems of race because they keep pointing out that whitey's institutions promote whitey's concerns."And yeah, by the by, MLK, Jr was focused on class, especially post CRA-1964. Which is probably why he stopped being useful as a good negro, and started being considered for the receiving end of a rifle's ejecta.
saurs, um, why am i reminded of an incident this past weekend in the environs of hahvahd?
'Cos you think I'm not man enough for you? Also, you wanted to talk about "pumping."
Since I have no patience for some of this weird parsing of rhetorical flourishes, let's instead try for a clearer question: show of hands, who present is opposed to the basic goals of feminism, in any of its many iterations? Like, you know, feminism is the belief that women are people, etc. etc. Let's not hide behind hilarious "deconstructions" of "dichotomies." Rather, do you believe that feminism, as a movement, is somehow contrary to liberty, as I suspect some of you are implying?
Not contrary to liberty.
Saurs couldnt say anything original if her life depended on it. He, she, it is a bag of animosity and projection. She will list out the entire canon of timeworn leftist tropes before you can get a second word in. Shes not interested in discussion or edification, only smug superiority. Shes a resctionary, she will not conceef a millimeter. I think the world would benefit if you killed yourself. There is a man in a Zionist dungeon on his 62nd. day of a hunger strike, that "dude " is opression. What your bag is is resentment over perceived slights and the policing of language. Go fucking die.
d.m., i'll play. not opposed.saurs, funny. actually, it's the smug. sometimes, it prevents you from seeing through the haze.
seems i'm not alone.
Soylamt green is people.
Re:MLK:If it's received wisdom you're after, it was gettin' uppity 'bout 'Nam what did him in.
davidly - quite so, but his opposition was explicitly based on the idea that poor folks were dying disproportionately, not just poor blacks. Or to put it anothe way, my recollection is that thinking thru Nam was his personal gateway to thinking about class instead of race ...
JC - fair 'nuff JC - I see your point now even though it's subtle enough to hurt my head a little. (And en passant, thanks for taking my comments here seriously - few do.)but here's the thing - I actually think it's a "situational" thing, despite gooseygander's guffaw at my use of the term.What I mean by that is that there are still plenty of oppressed women a la Norma Rae who have the right to "perpetuate the dichotomy".And there are a smaller number of relatively unoppressed women (Shalala, MacKinnon, ...) who don't.But that doesn't stop them from doing so because it pays the bills ...Finally, regarding my allusions - neither comedy nor dusting off the old rags - merely my way of registering a protest at the very rampant anti-intellectualism which infects a certain segment of M'sieur's commentariat - one which he foolishly encourages by his unqualified digs at establishment academia (he doesn't recognize that there is a segment of his commentariat that doesn't understand the difference between academia and intellectuals.)Honestly, sometimes I think that this segment of M'sieur's commentariat all see themselves as Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting ... i mean yeah - the movie is to love but also to be taken with a grain of salt ...
EL! You haven't answered my question.
"Shes not interested in discussion"LOL.I decided long ago never to walk in anyone's shadows, and also not to accommodate anti-feminists' willful ignorance and learned helplessness.
No, Drake Motel - I don't think feminism is contrary to liberty at all - I think that at its best, it is truly Rousseauian and Marxian in the sense of seeking to ensure that the most folks possible can maximize their humanity.
I dunno, EL. He was on the FBI commie watch list well before that, which tells you what they thought about his politics. At any rate, he regularly expressed concern about the racial divide amongst the poorer classes whenever he spoke about segregation.I hadn't realized that you thought of yourself as Will Hunting. I respect the custodial arts.
don't look at me. some of my best friends are academics and intellectuals.as for the straw poll, mine's a vote in favor of rad feminism.as for the other tacit straw poll, don't much care for EL's commenting style. grating.
@GenitalSaurs but you didnt adress my other points like why dont you make the world just that much better through your committing sepukku? You know commit suicide, die, kill yourself. Feminism is today in its mainstream Hillary Clinton, and in its radical Andrea Dworkin, little bit of CIA spy Gloria Steinam for good measure. Should women be free, equal? Of course, but this is an anarchist blog, anarchists believe in the ending of all authoritarianisms, all heiarchys. Why would you expect anarchists to support an ideologie that seeks liberation for one class of hunan being. This is nationalism. I dont advocate replacing one oppressive system for another. And I sense some of this ilk just want more female bosses and cops deep down.
IOZ's trollin' his readership.
Not to speak for others, but I think demize!'s answer was "no."
Anti-feminism=women aren't people? You need to get out more. But I'm not an anarchist so I don't count.FWIW, Twisty is right about porn.
Gabe, what else could anti-feminism possibly be, unless it's a furiously sputtered rejoinder to straw woman? For example, "an ideologie that seeks liberation for one class of hunan being. This is nationalism. I dont advocate replacing one oppressive system for another." This is both the most common "argument" against feminism, and also the stupidest thing written in this comment thread, which would place it high in the running for stupidest thing worldwide.
"I dunno, EL. He was on the FBI commie watch list well before that, which tells you what they thought about his politics."yeah but davidly - you're forgetting the historical reason and context for that.The Old Left CPUSA in the 30's did actually believe (and make no secret of their belief) that the best place to recruit in this country was the oppressed black community, so from Hoovie's POV, there was a legit reason to suspect all black troublemakers as being somehow connected with the Kremlin.So being black and in Hoovie's sights doesn't mean what it might otherwise seem to mean ...
to nonny at 536 - exactly what I thought to - see my first comment early in this thread - the imp of the perverse just got the better of him today, I guess ..
This: "willful ignorance and learned helplessness" (as to feminism)- describes a widespread phenomenon of intellectual passive aggressiveness whenever feminism in brought out.- exists in this thread.
Davidly and EL--This is from something I remember so may be wrong but I was under the impression that MLK became outspoken against the Vietnam war in his last years because he recognized that as long as the US was involved in imperial endeavors that there could be no social progress for blacks back here in the States.
rob p - that may have been an element of it, but I think that by the time he was shot, he had generalized away from race ... maybe I'm wrong ...
montag - "as for the other tacit straw poll, don't much care for EL's commenting style. grating."Good Lord, I certainly hope so.As the Georgia farmer said in response to the anguished city-slicker protesting the fact that he was whacking his mule over the head with a 2x4:"how else am I supposed to get her attention?"
rob, in seeing your comment earlier on those more native to this land .. you are right .. of what you are touching on there ..i was involved in something, not long after justin came to visit me in the spring , .. where i was the only non native person to be asked to take part in something quite incredible i realize now as i look back on it on being reminded by your comments here .. incredible in what it was ,and in that something of my gentle nature made this gathering of people more native to this land from all over north america .. approach me .. . ..to ask me to take part .. . ,i'd like to say more but i am in the middle of something right now that needs my attention ... . but i wanted to address your comments above in some way .. .
The vast majority of murders and rapes are committed by men. Warfare is also what men do best. So the best way to make the world more peaceful is to kill all the men.Maybe we can settle for castration instead. That works pretty well at reducing aggression.
Aside from the dopiness of the overall sentiment it's good to see even IOZ realizes "radical feminism" = "anti-dude".
Now that's just absurd, demize. No one is going to cut your dick off. Not if I have anything to say about it.
Anne,That sounds intriguing and I’d love to hear more about it sometime. It was after I studied the varied cultures of North American Indians in a class I took years ago that I saw that a lot of things I thought were normal and universal to human beings was all wrong. I’d guess it’s the main reason I’m more open to so-called anarchy today. They really saw the world in a completely different way than we do.
(IOZ, this is too funny. Probably your best piece yet.)
"There is a man in a Zionist dungeon on his 62nd. day of a hunger strike, that "dude " is opression."Very sad western white dudes whose fees fees are in danger of being neglected strongly identify with persecuted political prisoners (say that five times fast), think bitches and whores the world over have it coming, and its all Hillary Clinton's fault. Got it.
Can't believe Arka hasn't mentioned Joe the plumber yet.
oh gawd, rob. Your cultural appreciation class, delivered via a wealthy white western university, taught you to be a better world citizen? Also, plumbing.
"Very sad western white dudes whose fees fees are danger of being neglected strongly identify with persecuted political prisoners (say that five times f think bitches and whores the world over have it com and its all Hillary Clinton's fault. Got it." lol whats a "fee fee"? Very sad western white chick very upset that some really icky guy guy not in stovepipes and looking anguished said she had a nice ass once. Also pissed off ovet the 4 year wedge issue parade designed to keep working class people fighting each other, plus vagina or something.
Also I swear to Allah the Most Merciful that I didn't sock puppet, IOZ back me up on this please. I'll bet it was this anon doing a counter psy-op. Now go suck an eggplant Ya 7Mar sharmoota!
"Every year or so, IOZ will publish approximately the same post, and invariably a number of regular dudes will assume aloud that he's jus' joshin', 'cos the alternative, I suppose, is so unpalatable."Or it could be because it happens exactly once a year.God, what a lousy thread.
Arka, Never said it made me better. And it was an anthropology class not what you said. And sorry but I don't provide half time entertainment, others already have that covered so don't waste your time.
antidude antidote? I am very much into the anti-sex movement. parthenogenesis forever! or maybe pro-sex hermaphroditism!or maybe we should all be giant sea bass.This is prolly a comment lacking cogency. fuck me for that.
Dood, anthropology is cultural appreciation in most universities. Actually, almost every class is, now. No offense; this one's just whining. We can waste your time in a different fashion. C'mon, IOZ; if you're going to be Jerry Springer with your topics, at least show up at the end to give us your final thoughts.
Okay EL. So J Ed thought that the MLK was a great and mighty red without embracing the ideology himself. Like, he was gonna start throwing cocktails for the KGB.
I'm really embarrassed for what was once a great commentariat. Seriously. This thread reads like a who's who of internet assholes.
Right, let's get back to the glory days of brilliant commentary from the likes of Mr Fundamental and La Rana. Who let all the assholes in, man?!?!
lucid -Here's an insight which you can choose to use or lose, as you see fit:Because you chose to become an ABD (all-but-dissertation), chez IOZ for you has been a place where you can talk the talk, even though you never walked the walk.So of course it bothers you when chez IOZ takes on the ambience of a good corner bar, rather than that of Socrates' stoa.Suggestion - find some way of finishing your degree (if the ten-year rule has not invalidated your coursework), or do one of those quickie Florida PhDs (it really doesn't seem to matter anymore, and there are now Florida PhD's that are regionally accredited.And please note that I offer this advice as one who in this very thread has inveighed against the anti-intellectualism of a segment of M'sieur's commentariat.
fer chrissakes, lucid, when was internet commentary ever different? You're showing your years. Time to buy into Florida. In this one's opinion, you're all several points more interesting than an early 90s AOL chatroom. You also tend to use caps-lock less. So there's an evolutionary improvement. We could always speculate about our Leo host's identity. Occasional spot-writer for The Simpsons? The old standbys, Paris or Sacha?
Oxtrot's a corporate lawyer? Oooh, no wonder he furiously projects all his impotent rage and self-loathing onto Greenwald then. Poor Oxy. Buck up, champ, maybe you'll peek into your shorts one day, find a pair, and do something that will allow you to bask in a few minutes of pride during your sad existence.
Arka,The only time I went to a university was to play in their big band, didn’t take any courses. You don’t need a PH.D to be a musician. The class I took was at a local yokel community college but I suppose you are correct, still I enjoyed the class for whatever that is worth.
"fer chrissakes, lucid, when was internet commentary ever different?"He's talking about this here blog at another time. Perhaps he remembers it too fondly, but if this discussion is any indicator, there has been some decline. No one bothers to even comment on what's written in the post. The cheerleaders say yay and the naysayers say nay and it's all very uninteresting.I think it's what happens when anything but absolute agreement elicits abuse. Only sycophants and trolls stick around.
You forgot sycophantic trolls, like me.
Rob Payne:Please ease up on the Native American fetishing unless you can make a passable attempt at knowing what you are talking about.
Ah ha, rob, that probably means you learned more. Many CCs have less infection than the 4 years. As to the rest, this veneration of an ideal past is, like, exceptionalism and delusion. People are people are people. Instead of whining about how the show used to cost a nickel, let's talk about something. In this case, IOZ's original prompt was either 1) lunacy, or 2) an attempt to provoke exactly this kind of funny bickering. Which is why IOZ pwns us all. Let's turn the tables on him by discussing marginal utility rates. Also, IOZ, be fair to yourself. When principal exceeds $10 million, it's entirely appropriate that you can get that new Modena. After all, "maintenance" can be so broadly construed.
in defense of this thread's detractors:following a fairly bland post asserting the congruity between anarchism and feminism, a few dullards promptly chased off the small number of female commenters, in order to better conduct their debate over MLK's political evolution and one another's educational background.perhaps the conversation here never was any better, but the comment threads have become pretty embarrassing, especially since every thread gets hijacked by the same six people having the exact same turgid, masturbatory "argument".
Would it be too much to ask some of the dudes why they think IOZ is insincere?
Arka,I’m not venerating anything, just relating some facts. I have no desire to be an Indian nor do I put them on a pedestal. The point I was trying to make was that there are more possibilities than the western world. Draw your own conclusions as you will but I think you make a lot of assumptions. And no, not all people are the same, another gross assumption. Go to the library and get some books on the topic and read them if you have a mind to do so, you might be surprised. @ Anon 3:13,How would you know what I know? If you had spent any time at all learning about the topic you would know I wasn’t just pulling stuff out of my hat. I haven’t said anything extraordinary regarding Indians, in fact it’s fairly common knowledge found in any text book on the subject. As for fetishing, try not to be absurd. As I said above I was just trying to make a point. If you didn’t like it I have no problem with that at all.
@5:37 what a sad, token "patriarchal oppression" schtick. If only the "dullard" men hadn't oppressed the women, they might've felt confident enough to have a book club meeting about how all men should be exterminated because they, like, suck. @Anon 6:03, because IOZ is (probably) not stupid. It's possible this one's wrong, but IOZ is probably not the sick-minded breed of drug-addled homosexual who starts to hate the evolution of millions of years of sexually reproductive beings. @rob, no accusations that you want to be/pedestalize Indians. Also, it's unfair to say that "the western world" doesn't include them. They're still here, and many of them are adopting the ways of Empire, just as many are resisting. The western world is part and parcel of them--those who still remain, the traces of culture that have been mismashed into perverse Americana, and the little bits of freedom that exist outside of mining, development and casinos.
Quit mansplaining, dude.
re anon @ 5:37Geez - The locals complaiend less about gentrification in Tribeca and Soho back in the last century.The gentry always move in on anything good - just think about how blacks feel re R&B etc ... from Delta jukes to "House of Blues" ...It's just the way of the world - a few hardy pioneers get somethin goin and then nobody can get a good seat no more ... the gentry have sucked em all up ...
Anarchism is not complicated, conceptually or tactically (see the sidebar), so you're going to have some turgid, masturbatory arguments on any thread that involves internet anarchism theory. If that's what you're looking for, you're better served reading a book as our rad-fem comrades have urged. I'm here for the Monsieur's current event commentary, and for the laughs, of which this thread has plenty. Lucid, until you write your path-breaking anarchist epistemology or technology is developed whereby an intellectual can eat his own thoughts, I will maintain that one cannot be an intellectual and an anarchist (any more than one can be an anarchist dude, apparently). But by all means, keep on whinging about how they're doing it wrong. Rob, why are you even responding to these assholes? Eerily, the crickets are begging for a break. Just a day or two. Please.
Wait--confused. In this analogy, am I the cricket? Or am I the marching band that drowns out the cricket? And is Eerily the old man on the porch, or is he the cricket, and I'm the marching band, or vice versa? Or is this all about feminism after all, and the females are the crickets, who are repressed by my cicada-esque droning? @6:34, I'm female, so does that mean there's been an infection of man of which I'm unaware? Or does one become a man by not agreeing with anything self-professed radical feminists say? Fine, I'm a radical feminist. Now YOU'RE mansplaining. How you like them apples? Please be quiet so the crickets can be heard.
@309 NoonyDid you finish up writing those lines, as I asked?The Dull Sycophant
"whinging about how they're doing it wrong. "And you can keep whinging about how we're doing it wrong and so on and so forth.In my case, I barely come here, so I am no part of any regulars doing anything. I guess we can put you in the sycophants camp.
Would it be too much to ask what it means to be 'anti-dude'? Does even asking betray my misogynist passive-aggression, even though the question is put to the cheerleader boys also?
Might have known such a task was well beyond the abilities of Arka. Any other takers? Can anybody define radical feminism as the radfems see it, not as you wish to see it, and then explain why IOZ is lying?
That's like asking self-professed anarchists to define anarchism. So even ones that you would think are "actually" radical feminists would disagree with each other. So why is IOZ wrong? Because collective guilt and collective punishment are wrong. Blaming all male entities for actions (real or imagined) that may or may not have occurred prior to their birth is not fair/right. That would be like, I dunno, coming up with a book that blames all women for one woman eating an apple. Also, as many radical feminists will agree, plenty of women are (and have been) "part of the problem," by raising daughters poorly, defending "female genital cutting," demanding honor killings for junior family members, and so forth. So blaming men is only half right. IOZ hasn't shown back up to defend what would be either truthfully, an awful slur, or humorously, a pretty good way of stirring up the hive and giving Saurs some material, but you're welcome to have an actual debate in defense of proud, hateful bigotry if you want to take him seriously.
"explain why IOZ is lying?"i just find dudes doing the anti-dude thing, that is, taking on rad feminism at its most idiotically essentialist, is almost invariably a pose.Taken along with the rarity of IOZs excursions into this neck of the woods, and the generic Twisty Fasterness when he does, it's fair to regard it as fairly lightweight.
Not suggesting IOZ's an expert radfem or even a fairly gifted ally, 8:39 PM. But the nimrods chez here seem convinced this is all a gigantic ruse to rustle up some comments. If it's a ruse, he's been doing it a good long while, and apart from the Klein / Wolf fiasco and some piss poor references to Polanski, I wouldn't say anything he's written is openly antifeminist.(As for being antidude, Im assumming most people recognize the difference between what radfems and funfems call a dude and men as sometimes separate, often overlapping categories.)Mostly what I'm hearing is a buncha macho fuckwads phlegmatically clearing their throats and loosening their collars in camp fashion because they're uncomfortable and want reassurance their host is on their side. He isn't though and they haven't proven otherwise.As for Arka: if you can't properly define it, you can't dismiss it, or at least you can't expect any of us to care about what you say when you do. So solly.
"I wouldn't say anything he's written is openly antifeminist."Or misogynist, anyway, which distinguishes him from 99 percent of bloggers.
"Blaming all male entities for actions (real or imagined) that may or may not have occurred prior to their birth is not fair/right. That would be like, I dunno, coming up with a book that blames all women for one woman eating an apple."for reals, dude?"The gentry always move in on anything good - just think about how blacks feel re R&B etc ... from Delta jukes to "House of Blues" ...It's just the way of the world - a few hardy pioneers get somethin goin and then nobody can get a good seat no more ... the gentry have sucked em all up ..."shut. the. fuck. up.
And the tautology continues. Everytime someone says "dude " you should counter it with "cunt " because they totally mean something else and you should bloody well know this.
Lissen up you fucking idiots.Here's the problem in a nutshell.The notion of regression to the mean entails that of a randomly selected bunch of feminists, radical or otherwise, a fair number are going to be averagely stupid.But nonetheless, we are to respect what they say when they deliver feminist pitches, simply because they're delivering feminist pitches.Why the fuck should we, pray tell?Are we all now in a Mike Judge movie?
If they gave Razzies to threads, this would be nominated for one
the nightmare will be upon us the very moment we decide to stop wagging our dicks at stupid bitches!
It is a nightmare listening to you lot, no substance just smug ingroup epithets. I love all the super serious old timers lamenting the loss of there boring jargon laden discussions of the arcane, and inane.
Their. This is IOZ.2.0 adapt or perish. Dumb it down for us non academics.
Fuck, EL genuinely believes he's an intellectual. I thought for the longest time he was being ironic, to match his stupid fucking pseudonym.
every thread gets hijacked by the same six people having the exact same turgid, masturbatory "argument".And a few of them are probably the same person. coff coff.
"I love all the super serious old timers lamenting the loss of there boring jargon laden discussions of the arcane, and inane."I have excellent news for the world. There's no such thing as New Wave. It does not exist. It's a figment of lame kinds of imagination. There was never any such thing as New Wave. It was the polite thing to say when you were trying to explain you were not into the boring old rock 'n roll but you didn't dare to say punk because you were afraid to get kicked out of the party and they wouldn't give you coke any more. There's New Music, there's New Underground Sound, there's Noise, there's Punk, there's Power Pop, there's Ska, there's Rockabilly, but New Wave doesn't mean shit.
Well I like The Bad Brains, still do.
But the nimrods chez here seem convinced this is all a gigantic ruse to rustle up some comments.ioz believing it and ioz saying it for the sake of page views are not mutually exclusive.
nonny @11:03Ya know - there a lotta folks here who'd really like to see me diappear and all they'd have to do to make it happen is to convince M'sieur to state in public that he gives a shit about page views I would never bother reading here again, much less dropping a comment
" But the nimrods chez here seem convinced this is all a gigantic ruse to rustle up some comments."No. He doesn't care about comments. He doesn't care about anything. IOZ is a performance, mostly for himself. IOZ is interested in being the best male person in the crowd in a patriarchal sort of way. So when rad fem idiots fall for this shtick, it's really rather sad."a buncha macho fuckwads phlegmatically clearing their throats and loosening their collars in camp fashion because they're uncomfortable and want reassurance their host is on their side."Actually, IOZ's post found a lot of reflexive, uncritical agreement, as usual around here. But do keep conjuring up this wall of monolithic male oppression that keeps your drama quotient high and makes people like IOZ feel a whole lot more special than they are. "if you can't properly define it, you can't dismiss it, or at least you can't expect any of us to care about what you say when you do. "I'll define it for you and by it, I mean not radical feminism but the retarded variety being peddled here: which is that sexism is something that flows from the inherent fucked-upness of maleness, rather than a fucked up system that has a gazillion and one ways to discipline EVERYONE.Had IOZ said anarchism is feminist, I doubt that anyone would have disagreed. But, of course, if he'd said that he'd just been a run of the mill dude, and we can't have that.
Oh for God's sake.Mercy me, I didn't know dude was different from a man. I guess that was covered way back in The Second Sex. It's been a while...Color me passive-aggressive and misogynist for forgetting.Anyway -- So what's Condi Rice? Hillary? Dianne Feinstein? Sarah Palin? That women giving the thumbs up over the corpse at Abu Ghraib? You know, these completely anomalous imperial vampires? Are they dudes too?
Anonymous @ 11:22 PM wins the thread.
All these rhetorical questions about What Women Are For have been answered above. Look to the skies, gentlefolk.
@9:12: your casual slur at Asian Americans is so fucking disgusting that it makes Stanley Kowalski look like a radfem. You should be beyond ashamed of yourself. And if you were anything approaching even the most generic definition of "radical feminist," you would link all major forms of racism to the same system of patriarchal oppression that you'd see as the causer of most/all of the world's ills. @11:22: yeah, and the ego element lends support to the theory that "he" is actually Oprah, but that one probably sinks. @all anons: While a name does not define a person, when a conversation runs between many ones, it sure makes it fun to get to "know" one another. For some of you, there's a delight in never being identifiable, and others might actually be sock puppets,* but if any of you out there are interested in manifesting anything like community and are just being anonymous because you're lazy, it would be nice if you would adopt a pseudonym to help this whole "language" and "society" thing work out. *excluding the ones who are IOZ being cute; anonymous IOZ is certainly not only allowed, but encouraged.
And to actually jump through IOZ's rhetorical hoop, which has been repeated by his blind cheering section who thinks his customer service department actually cares when the recording says, "We care about your business, please continue to hold..." ...this one says, based upon academic lectures and syllabi in thirteen major U.S. universities and one British one, radical feminism is simply the proposition "the experience of women is important." Everything else flows from there, and is open to interpretation. Anyone who says that patriarchal oppression either 1) doesn't exist, or 2) is not so utterly prevalent every major world institution as to be the deciding factor in 99% of social policies, is part of the problem, a patriarch or a tool of the patriarchs, and is in sore need of educating. Like a fish who has never peeked above the surface of [his] sad little pond. When arguing as a pro-feminist, one finds allies best by making sweeping generalizations, and relying on the fact that enough conditioning has made even the most ignorant people vaguely aware that they can get in trouble and lose friends by expressing anything but enthusiastic positivity about the feminism at hand. feminism = SWPL
utterly prevalent IN.
High Arka said:"it would be nice if you would adopt a pseudonym to help this whole "language" and "society" thing work out."I am Anon @11:35, @11:22 and @8:16.
Why are you getting so emotional, High Arka?
Welcome, Lab Beagle! Your shell is acknowledged. @2:33 Anon, this one is an emotional being constantly; as to what may have been felt while typing previous posts, imagine that someone made, without any hint of irony or humor, a comment about niggers or dykes or uppity bitches. Would you blink? Because the 9:12 anon's mocking of the ways that native east Asian language speakers often have trouble forming the "r" sound when otherwise successfully speaking a second or third language is just as idiotic and vulgar. So, no more or less emotional than when commenting on little kids getting blown apart or Bush breaking wind into the Oval Office chair, but that answer probably addresses what you were getting at.
Sorry, but claiming that "anarchism implies the most radical feminism" strikes me as the same type of mystical utopianism that Christianity provides to its followers when it hucksters "Faith in Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ implies the salvation of souls."Not that I have any kind of corner on the nature of reality or anything, but believing in theoretical concepts that function primarily to divert people's attention away from the reality that faces them strikes me as a waste of time, to say the least, and simply daft, to be more accurate.I personally don't believe in anarchy any more than I do Christianity, and any more than I do the Wizard of Oz for that matter.But whether I do or don't is irrelevant. What matters is the situation on the ground and how that situation compels people of good will to act.
Pretend that someone said: "Good" is, of course, a theoretical concept that functions primarily to divert people's attention from reality. Just because some people are asses about "anarchism" or "feminism"--which people may or may not include this one--does not mean that using certain symbols or noises to refer to a shared understanding of a concept is a bad idea. Damn, IOZ, you really had this topic nailed. Time to get a fourth refill of popcorn and wait for more posts to pop up.
lucid, somehow, i missed your comment at 3:36. thanks for that.gabe, i think twisty is wrong about guys who watch porn. it's a bit like thinking about a nazi soldier who by day performs atrocities and returns home at night, the loving and dutiful husband and father. (patience, please, there's a second layer to this argument.) not that the atrocities are not atrocities, but most people (including you and i) are likely not so different from this nazi, or the men-who-watch porn. that is to say, it's not that porn isn't a monstrous degradation of women. it is. however, i don't think it means that men-who-watch-porn are sociopaths on an order any different from the rest of us, as humans. that is, humans all have the capacity to sociopathy. (i'm reminded of an incident last weekend in the environs of hahvahd... my usual vacant-ish thought: it's usually when we're at our most righteous that sociopathy kicks in.)all, let's make this real-er. some stakes on the table. my interest in feminism springs from the fact that i'm father to a 1-yr old girl. there are things i want for her. i want her to be healthy. i want her to be successful. i want her to be smart, hard-working, honest and kind.* but most importantly, i want her to be happy. (happy, in the sense of finding joy, but more importantly, happy in the sense of living a life of fulfillment.) which is just to say that, if feminism is worth anything, it should lead to my daughter's happiness. (for that matter, the same goes for everything else.) so the questions are: feminism, as you practice it, is what? how's it working for you? has it made you happy (i mean, actually happy)? or just angry and miserable? what do you think you're getting wrong? what aspect of feminism needs re-working/re-tooling to be more useful for women/girls? think of it as advice for a little girl. (of course, i'm her dad, so i'm screening your comments for content.) kindly share, if you would. greatly appreciated.* on re-reading, realized how much this this sounds like that whitney houston song.
You can't be an anarchist and take advantage of male privilege, any more than you can be a pacifist while shooting people.Y'all missed IOZ' point pretty bad here.
Puppylander,I agree that not all men who watch porn are sociopaths, but the habit will move them in that direction, some faster than others. Habits are very powerful things. So if a given porn user is not a sociopath right now, it's only a matter of time. Of course there is not a bright line between sociopaths and non-sociopaths. But there are sociopathic activities. Somebody said hate the sin, love the sinner, and I think that's still good advice.Also, let me say that I think it is unwise to even suggest a sincere exchange of advice in this forum. Your task is a hard one, and I doubt anyone here will be much help.
And sometime a jerkoff is only a jerkoff.Puppy, Having a family is much tougher alone. With a partner, it always means some sacrifice to your partner. Con-jugal.The Dull Sycophant
gabe ' and puppy , the word porn is too vague .. in how you are addressing it here ,both , / porn .. covers a lot of different things for most it seems in talking with others and reading , ..said back from away .. . where the snow still falls and stays .. .
and of worth repeating ..of gabe to 'lander in that .. . "the habit will move them in that direction, some faster than others. Habits are very powerful things. So if a given porn user is not a sociopath right now, it's only a matter of time. Of course there is not a bright line between sociopaths and non-sociopaths. " .. .
Whilst dredging archives of old, this one located a breakdown of feminism made sometime last year. Link follows: http://higharka.blogspot.com/2011/11/sex-and-drones-part-1.html
A Walk to BeautifulFeb. 19, .. . on tvont.A difficult journey that begins in hopelessness and shame for thousands of wom'n in Ethiopia ends in a productive new life. Shot in a starkly beautiful landscape, the film juxtaposes the isolated lives of village wom'n, who are outcasts because of their medical condition, with the faraway hospital that offers a miracle after a long and arduous trek - a "walk to beautiful".
Anarchism implies misandry? Maybe sex WAS original sin after all, then, but blame-allocation must be reevaluated, preferably with the aid of repeated viewings of "Zardoz". As Blake said, "One Law For The Lion And The Ox Is Oppression", and the cursed state has made a study of it.
"if feminism is worth anything, it should lead to my daughter's happiness"No. I'm sorry, I really am, I don't wish your daughter unhappiness at all, but keeping women complacent and content with their lot is not the aim of feminism in any of its guises. Feminism like any other political theory seeks to identify the source of a problem. If women are unhappy, this is not the fault of feminism. Men seem to think that feminism makes women irrationally angry and resentful, and angry women are a bad thing because women's anger or frustration is inconvenient to men and should therefore be discouraged. It just doesn't work like that.If enlightenment leads to anger, this is something men will either have to put up with, or will have to suppress. History teaches up that feminism is resisted and pilloried by men because it threatens them, which leads to more anger and confusion. If men don't want women to believe that men hate them, men should stop hating them, treating them like children, and protecting them from themselves.Radfems I know are pretty content with their lives because they've identified the foundation of women's oppression (hence the radical part), they have altered the way they live and think and work and interact with people as a result, they try their best to counter misogyny when they see it and raise their children to resist gender essentialism, and they have come to realize (distinguishing them from other feminists) that barring a complete revolution, most things won't change in their lifetimes and women's oppression is not likely to be eradicated any time soon. I cannott imagine this makes them much different from most anarchists, who unless they are very very earnest and naive and foolish, actually believe a state of anarchy will ever be achieved.Liberal feminists wish to use the state to enact changes for the better of women without addressing the origins of or dismantling patriarchy. Radical feminists view this cooperation as futile and dangerous, especially because improving women's lot does not automatically address intersectional issues of class and race.Lightly dismissing feminism because it hasn't made women any happier is a misguided interpretation both of the aim of the philosophy and of history: in the past several hundred years women have become slightly more human under the law, and of course are happier for it. Now it's time to get rid of the law altogether.
Anon @ 5:53 has achieved a temporary victory over the internet itself.
@5:53, you've summed up the tragedy of self-professed "feminists" best: why care about the happiness, fulfillment and well being of an actual female, when you could loftily quote theories on how "patriarchy" makes you the eternal underdog? That's exactly the kind of western selfishness that will ensure that new generations of children of both sexes enter the grindery. You really couldn't have put it better. Thanks for helping the analysis come full circle.
lol Jack =]
Oh, we're not in agreement, you and I, HA. Identifying causes rarely results in contentment. If you want well-adjusted, happy womenfolks, then persuade them to dial into a pharmaceutical Jesus. Otherwise, you'll just have to live with the beauty of hatred, and the truth of rage.
When I was a kid they used to have those anti-porn tables around New York. They each had a book that supposedly showed images that proved porn was horrid and inherently exploitative. I wanted to see for myself as I had always had ambiguous feelings about pornography, other than using it as a visuL aid to jack off to. I was told I could not because "I had a penis". This left a bad taste in my mouth because it reeked of essentialism and bigotry. So I read up on that movement. Andrea Dworkin and found my initial feelings were correct. These were supremicists and the very opposite of a liberatory movement. They sought to replicate the modalities of oppression with a utopia where one gender was supreme, matriarchy rather than patriarchy. That is nationalism.
@5:53, "you've summed up the tragedy of self-professed "feminists" best: why care about the happiness, fulfillment and well being of an actual female, when you could loftily quote theories on how "patriarchy" makes you the eternal underdog?" Yes! If only the slaves were more content and "happy" in their lot, we'd all have a very Merry Christmas!!
Youve missed the point again you anonomous dingleberry; that being the liberation of one gender of slave still leaves the institution of slavery intact.
I want to reiterate what's been said above, puppylander, that every man wants the best for his daughter as he defines a woman's happiness and fulfillment. What women the world over may want and need, what they are capable of achieving with the privileges and advantages that men are granted and that they themselves are barred from enjoying, is something probably radically different, may in fact make you very unhappy, indeed. It's a wonderful sentiment, but it's largely a platitude that means nothing. The material and nonmaterial things you want your daughter to have, would you mind if every woman had them? Are they the same things a son ought to have? What if her possessing them means you have less?It's sometimes stressed that the eradication of oppression is not a zero-sum game, and it isn't. We can all be happy in that Great Feminist Utopia in the sky, where feminism is no longer necessary because its aims have been achieved. But to get the ball rolling, men are going to have to give up a lot, question their assumptions, undergo some serious ego surgery, more than they realize. Are you willing to do that for your daughter? Can you even put into words what that means? Can you sort out of your life, and pinpoint the ways in which you've benefited from living in a patriarchy as a man? And, even if you can, how are you going to convince every other man on the planet to do the same? Welcome to our dilemma. The world will not be a welcoming and safe place for girls and women until men stop hating them and thinking that they exist solely to do men's bidding, categorizing and sorting them into good girls and bitches, whores and wives, resenting them and othering them through biology and trying to control them and when they can't be controlled, blaming all the world's problems on them and their bad behavior, excusing systemic violence against them and coming up with reasons why they have "chosen" to be second class.By virtue of your class, the color of your skin, what you do for a living, the sacrifices you make, you'll probably give your daughter a leg up over a good many women and a huge chunk of men. Is that enough for you? If it is, you're not a feminist, you're just a guy with a kid. Feminism is not about addressing your personal happiness, which can be achieved quite easily by fucking other people over to your heart's content. Some of the happiest people on the planet: right wing dudes in cushy jobs with plenty of women around to suck their cocks and make their dindins and wash their drawers, plenty of people of color around being casually exploited as slave labor, living in a country whose philosophy is rugged goddamned individualism, dude achieved this all on his own pinkyswear and no lies.The world's greatest and most violent misogynist, the kind that goes on a killing and raping spree: he probably knows some women too, probably likes them a great deal, probably makes exceptions for them and excuses them for their silly inferior female traits. It's not enough to say you have a wife, you have a mother, you have a daughter, and you want the best for them. Some of my best friends are X. You're one of the good ones, not like those fucking Xs. The bigot always have to rationalize why the problem isn't with hir, it's with those fuckers, and zie knows this because zie's capable of the grand gesture of making an "exception." Well, congratulations, you special snowflake, you.
"why care about the happiness, fulfillment and well being of an actual female, when you could loftily quote theories on how "patriarchy" makes you the eternal underdog? That's exactly the kind of western selfishness that will ensure that new generations of children of both sexes enter the grindery."here is a list of things i do not believe you care about:1) the happiness, fulfillment and well being of an actual female2) "patriarchy"3) western selfishness4) generations of children5) both sexes6) the grinderyyou seem to be dead set on delegitimizing the foundations of feminism. since we are not yet suffering the cruel indignities of the matriarchy, you do have the right to attempt this. but it's kind of like hanging around a sports bar and shouting at every single patron about their frivolous, militarist hobby. a fun night for some, sure -- but wouldn't you rather go anywhere else?
Wow, words! @Jack, now that you've made clear to publicly announce that you don't agree with the unpopular person--wise choice for your social standing--this one doesn't understand what the rest of your post meant. @demize, that's interesting. A boy in this one's extended family had a similar experience at school last year. Apparently, the school (public middle school) allowed a feminist group to set up a table in the library and give out Native American "mother and papoose" toys to all the girls to teach them about their female heritage. Boys were not allowed to have the toys, and had to steer clear of the library for a while, because their presence would somehow stifle the exchange. @6:41 anon, what makes females slaves in a different and/or worse way than males? More importantly than all these differences is the painfully unobvious point that if we try to address any problems--imaginary or real--by partitioning one sex against the other, we'll only set up more terrible problems later. @Saurs, you arrogant, terrible beast, you've just slurred the entire male sex by saying "every man wants the best for his daughter as he defines a woman's happiness and fulfillment." Men cannot possibly know, or even realistically contribute to, what makes women happy and fulfilled? Turn that logic back on us: sure, every woman wants her sons to be fulfilled and happy, but only inasmuch as she can understand men. And she can't. Therefore, patriarchy is required to free men from repressive women. You've just justified either repressive patriarchy or repressive matriarchy. You've also just said that men cannot parent happy daughters. I.e., two male partners could not raise a happy daughter, because they could only understand her needs "as they define a woman's happiness/fulfillment." How truly loathsome. Was that a stupid typo, or do you actually feel men are that inadequate? Your sexism is so blatantly offered that it's like talking to an old-school KKK member about why niggers suck. You are willing to denigrate an entire group based on your own psychosexual repressions. Unfortunately, while it did become unacceptable in mainstream society for blacks and women to be slurred by disgusting bigots, a new breed of bigotry has arisen to take its place, and empowered people like you to say the most derogatory things about roughly half the planet's human population.
Rest of response: By the way, are you American? Okay. Then you're going to need to get the ball rolling to head toward utopia. Turn over all your money to the tribal officials of the nearest Native American tribe, and then kill yourself. Give back what you've taken. Time to sort out the ways that you've benefited from the genocide. And then, go to Hell. Because that whole "original sin" thing has been really pissing the men off. Time to pay the piper for the apple. It'll be tough, and you won't be able to convince the rest of the non-100%-Native-blooded population to do it...welcome to my dilemma. Not gonna do it? Still alive and living on the stolen land? Then you're not into racial equality; you're just into talk. Racial equality is not about addressing your personal happiness, which can be achieved quite easily by blathering about "feminism" on top of the American graveyard of millions upon millions. You special fucking snowflake, you. You're so completely different. Very rude; very unpleasant. We've shared that today. Would you like to actually discuss what made you so angry that you wanted to slur all males? This one's happy to. E-mail; show up on a different blog; do it here. Or just wail angrily about how other women are sucking richer cocks than you've got access to, make this one part of the problem, and you'll find no shortage of increasing support as sexism needle swings from one side to the other over the next many years. @anon 8:11, this one would rather not just sit in a chamber of people who echo the same viewpoint. How else to grow, improve and learn? Opinions could be right or wrong; wrong could be corrected, right could help others. Is the purpose of the internet just to vent or to find people who agree with you and be validated by them? As you'd know if you watched this one argue with "conservatives," "neoliberals," et cetera, there's no particular discomfort being highly unpopular. If present humanity never validates this one's faith that viewpoints can be changed patiently, then see you in the memory hole once you've shifted to unpopular.
This despicable @genitalsaurs is do enmeshed in her own smug class privilege that she is completely obtuse to that which it buys her. She can only regurgitate the smelly orthodoxy that offers her a victim staus. Lol.
arka,your unpopularity is owed not to your bravery, but your solipsism.women are all like: every time someone rapes me it's a man.and you're all like: if you hurt my feelings you're as bad as the KKK!
And yet there is nothing at all solipsistic in what she has said you anonymous dingleberry. You are projecting, insert quarter and dont try again. It is revelatory though, how all the various anons choose to not reply to the substance of the aurgument, only the periphery. Whst is that called? Im sure there's a word for it.
HA,I think you're quite popular with a whole swath of the commentariat. But, I assure you, my pseudonym is not injured or improved by your alleged social standing, or mine.I just don't agree, is all. I have no use for the essentialism of the complaint against feminism, nor the implication of the all-too-Christian either/or which attaints it.To suggest that feminist critique slanders all men is to read it with a niggard's eye. And I write this as neither ally, nor critic.
Yes Jack, all "feminist critiques" don't; this one has witnessed some very good ones that attempt to stop all sexism, rather than to blame all males for a set of masculine crimes in the various ways that Saurs does. As to demize, yes, you're likely right about Saurs--and this one's money is with your bet--but there are plenty of lower-class, minority, and/or non-American women who will express the same viewpoint as Saurs, for different reasons. Poison can seep everywhere. So while Saurs is a SWPL in outlook, the things she says can't be attributed solely to that background. What we probably need around here is some lengthy thoughts from anne on what it means to be a woman in this modern world. Or at least IOZ's final thoughts. C'mon, Sacha, throw us a bone already.
I like the shared assumption that IOZ had nothing better to do this weekend than follow this stupid thread.
the substance of that guy's argument was that listening to SAURS is "like talking to an old-school KKK member about why niggers suck". he also told her to kill herself, surely a rhetorical flourish (of sorts), but not the first time in this thread that a male commenter has (rhetorically) wished death upon a woman for the crime of saying something that hurt his feelings.
He clearly had nothing better to do with his week prior than post that incendiary little remark. Jeebus, do you have to be so idolatrous? He's just some person. He's very clever; maybe even wonderful. Why this weird tendency to idolize stars wherever they're found in place of the parents who never gave enough lo--oops. @10:13 anon, yeah, telling an entire group of people that they are incapable of human understanding is equivalent bigotry to the KKK's stated policies. Saurs is being an awful bigot. Let's help her. Saurs, what made you so angry that you felt that no "man" can ever understand you or any other "woman"?
Is the purpose of the internet just to vent or to find people who agree with you and be validated by them?yes, of course. what else would you use it for?
Im the one who suggested the honarable option of ritual Sepukku. I feel very strongly that one should have this choice and retain autonomy over ones body. You are lumping all the oppositional voices into one amorphous entity, which it seems is your want to do. Something easier to project your own unexplored demons onto. May I suggest Erich Fromm's "Escape from Freedom"? It was very revelatory for me. Or shall I post Feral Faun's essay again?
"telling an entire group of people that they are incapable of human understanding is equivalent bigotry to the KKK's stated policies."are you sure you mean to say "equivalent"?stay vigilant, asshole
i lumped the two screaming shits who told her to kill herself together. yes, i did.revelatory!
PS. listening to Saurs is akin to getting Saurs, on your genitals, plus gender neutral. Im sure they'd infect anything they came into contact with. Thats what reactionaries do. This is fun. Are we all having fun?
I mean, honestly, this is more flattering than anything else. Normally I just get a buncha guys asking me how I want my rape, ya feckin' dyke, et cetera et cetera. Barely personalized impotent rage copy and pasted a half dozen times in the same thread doesn't deliver quite the same sting.
Man, it's a good thing I'm not an anarchist; I can just skip this whole silly thread and go back to beating my wives.
("Equivalent" as in "like in signification or import." Yes, that's what bigotry is. It's rarely presented as "I'm an irrational bigot!" Instead, there is justification offered. E.g., "Because of __________, I'm a bigot and I'm right!" Try "The Bell Curve" or "Patriarchy" to fill in the blank.)Saurs, really--what is it that made you so angry? Do you think there might be a way to cure men so that they wouldn't all be incapable of understanding women, so that all humans, regardless of whether they identify as "man," "woman," or any of a large set of terms which you might just denote "miscellaneous" could live in harmony in this angle of the multiverse? The people who insulted you may have believed they were justified in doing so because they were poorly treated by someone they thought was like you. They weren't right, and neither are you when passing on the same foulness to others. Why don't we just stop that little cycle right here, mmh?
Im guessing Sores lives in England and went to a posh public school. This from her classist semi Cockney affectation of guys who have tried hitting on her,or in her parlance asked "how she'd like her rape" implying she believes all penile copulation is rape. Aka a "fekking" insane ideologue. Whose up for a wager?
equivalent? one woman telling you that you can't understand a woman's happiness is EQUIVALENT to the fucking klan?!?!you haven't a fucking clue what bigotry is.
demize, your theory is reasonable, but this one suspects it's more of that honored American tradition of "anything vaguely British is more respectable and learned by definition." A lot of Americans like typing "colour" and "favourite" and such for that reason. @ 11:47 anon, it's not "me"; the blanket statement was made about "men." I.e., males of the species. I.e., a generalization applied to an entire group of people Saurs has never met. People whom, incidentally, she defines based on rigid sex roles that radical feminism and LGBT studies people have begun to reject. Here's a nice definition of bigotry, though, for you: one who regards or treats the members of a group with intolerance. Saurs passes judgment on men as a class. That's dictionary bigotry. This one's arguments would not be popular in Dixie 160 years ago, either, but hey, if you only complain about unpopular bigotry--like fading patriarchy--then the popular stuff sort of lingers on and gets worse. It always seems like a ridiculous joke at the time when someone questions the popular.
gabe,i understand and agree that habit shapes character, but it's for that reason that it's an empirical question. (and therefore, twisty's basically wrong.)5:53,to say that feminism is about identifying causes but not about happiness... i don't buy that. i mean, what's the point of identifying causes? to solve problems? what problems? keep asking "why" and i think you'll find that it is all, in fact, about happiness.so maybe that's the more/most fundamental question--"what is happiness?" does feminism (iyo) give us a definition of happiness? (i mean, a definition of happiness that is unique to feminism.) honest question. it's ok if there isn't a unique definition--i just feel as though there should be one.j.c.,i recall a post here or there where you mention your own kid(s). i have a hard time believing that you'd throw a few kids into a steel cage and yell "BEAUTY OF HATRED!" and "TRUTH OF RAGE!" at them.i'll admit, i'm kinda curious... how you raise your kids... whether what you say in here really lines up with what your kids are shown and told. for example, i have a hard time picturing you telling your kid "forget about college, it ain't worth it".just out of curiosity, what do you think ioz tell his kids? (i know he's gay. but that doesn't mean anything, does it?)saurs,wow. did you really just ask me the following: "Are they the same things a son ought to have? What if her possessing them means you have less?.. Are you willing to do that for your daughter? Can you even put into words what that means? Can you sort out of your life, and pinpoint the ways in which you've benefited from living in a patriarchy as a man? And, even if you can, how are you going to convince every other man on the planet to do the same?"i had a much more caustic response, because those questions are seriously offensive. they're the words of a child lecturing an adult--but unlike in fairy tales, the words are not cute, and they are not deep.but maybe those questions reflect your experience growing up. if so, i'm really sorry that your parents (or whoever raised you) made you feel so worthless and helpless. i hope you find a way.
I don't know puppylander. You ask a series of deeply condescending, loaded questions, obviously designed to make us radfems see the error of our ways, asking us in polite paternalist fashion where we think we're going wrong as if our "going wrong" is a fact beyond dispute and agreed upon by both parties, and the anonymous you address above decides instead of telling you to go fuck yourself to provide you a sincere, well thought-out response, in admittedly the most rudimentary and 101 of terms. In solidarity with her I expand on that idea, 'cos, yes, it is one hundred percent and unequivocal fact: you don't know what's best for women, women are not a monolith and we all want and desire different things, and what makes us docile and what makes us whole are, in this culture, anyway, almost always inverse things. That you are a daddy is beyond irrelevant; you framed your questions as a parent, and I responded accordingly.As shiny and new as it is to hear from men who are concerned about my and other women's happiness, I'm suspicious. Is this the kind of happiness that means we are fulfilled and you support our liberation no matter how we act towards you, or the kind of happiness that invariably presents itself as pretty and smiling? I wonder how many other folk confessing allegiance to a political philosophy get shamed for being angry, have their happiness questioned and interrogated like it's the end all be all of one's existence. Happiness? It's great if you can get it. In my experience there are two creatures who are perpetually cheerful in the face of all amounts of mad, bad and dangerous nonsense: brain-dead or -washed idjits, and dogs who are beaten often enough that they're deathly afraid of doing anything more controversial than wagging a tail or obeying their master. So, I gots to wonder why my happiness might matter.As for the Good Of it All if it's all for nowt, well, them's the breaks. I for one am not deeply interested or invested in winning over dudes to my side if said dudes' motivations are all about themselves and their family, I'm all right Jack and fuck everybody else.I'll repeat: feminism ain't the thing making women unhappy.
Please, Saurs--forgive this one's errors and try to help both of us. Perhaps we can both become better, more understanding people.
Justt for the record I am not concerned for your happiness. In fact I wish you scads of unhappiness. You are without a doubt one of the most smug, self righteous fuckbags Ive ever encountered. In devine retributive justice I ask The Most High to smite you with eternal misery. It would somewhat make uo for the displeasure of reading you and your anonymous shitbag syncophants. I detest you and your foul ideologie. I curse you abd call upon the furies to forever plague you with working class yobs on their way to the football to catcall and harass you in perpetuity. In the name of Zeus amen.
(Silly man, didn't you know that your purpose in life is to try to please woman? ;) That's why it's your fault if she's upset and unfulfilled, even if it's not your fault in the rational sense.) Ack, misguided feminists sure know how to give props to stereotypes.
I think many might benefit from this essay. Especially our kind host.
oh I think Utah is on board. . .He said, "It's the same with violence. You know, an alcoholic, they can be dryfor twenty years; they're never gonna sit in that circle and put their hand upand say, 'Well, I'm not alcoholic anymore' - no, they're still gonna put theirhand up and say, 'Hi, my name's Utah, I'm an alcoholic.' It's the same withviolence. You gotta be able to put your hand in the air and acknowledge yourcapacity for violence, and then deal with the behavior, and have the peoplewhose lives you messed with define that behavior for you, you see. And it'snot gonna go away - you're gonna be dealing with it every moment in everysituation for the rest of your life."I said, "Okay, I'll try that," and Ammon said "It's not enough!"I said: "Oh."He said, "You were born a white man in mid-twentieth century industrialAmerica. You came into the world armed to the teeth with an arsenal ofweapons. The weapons of privilege, racial privilege, sexual privilege,economic privilege. You wanna be a pacifist, it's not just giving up guns andknives and clubs and fists and angry words, but giving up the weapons ofprivilege, and going into the world completely disarmed. Try that."That old man has been gone now twenty years, and I'm still at it. But I figureif there's a worthwhile struggle in my own life, that, that's probably the one.Think about it.
looking in , i could say some things here that i have a feeling would help with some misunderstandings ,.. but i can't step away from my work here in this air,touch more out in the world living .., i was asked to take part in what was going on in what i mention to rob way above because i am a go between like no other out here , .. for now ..saurs (i assume not france ..as i wonder as i do about the name )i am understanding what you are trying to say here in ways that i can see that others are not , 'arka , i am understanding many of your quirks now in looking at your comments here , and i wish i could take a moment to look over at the links that mr. fund. and another have left here this morning .. .
great job guys. we were this close to living under a matriarchy, but your valor in the face of castration-happy stupid bitches has kept us all safe -- for now!
saurs,no, you have misread, and you misunderstand. (whether deliberately or otherwise.)bluntly, your questions in response were stupid. there is no parent worthy of parenthood who does not want what's best for their child--whatever "best" may be. there is no sacrifice that any parent worthy of parenthood would not make for their child. there is no amount of suffering that any parent worthy of parenthood would not endure for their child. there are three kinds of people who would even think to ask the questions you asked: 1. someone who has never known what it's like to feel the sometimes overwhelming crush of responsibility for the health, safety and happiness of another, 2. someone who has never known/ received such parental love, 3. someone so self-absorbed and sociopathic as to be incapable of appreciating/ recognizing it when received. and yes, i feel the tragedy of such individuals, but i can do nothing for that except to utter a feebly expression of sorrow.that i have a daughter is not "beyond irrelevant". just the opposite. it is entirely relevant. it means that i don't want for her the kind of false happiness that is mere "complacency" (to borrow 5:53's weird conception of happiness) or mere "docility" (to borrow your weird conception of happiness). that's to say, your responses were straw. and while your responses were voluminous, they seemed to me to reveal an unreflected feminism. that is, i find no objection to feminism. where i'm disappointed is that feminism is not actually a philosophy to you, at the personal level--rather, feminism is just your excuse not to be a good person.i'll be clear. i'm not concerned about your happiness as it pertains to you. that's your business. the unfortunate truth is that it's your burden if feminism hasn't helped you in your personhood.and i'll be honest. you are only of interest for two reasons: first, if you have found fulfillment, if you have achieve personhood, i simply hoped that you'd be willing to share your experiences. second, though tangentially, if you have instead found bitterness and anger and resentment and anger, i only hope that you do not spread or inflict that misery upon others (because there's enough suffering in this world as it is without you adding to it).there's a bit of irony in your closing comments at 1:30. first, if you don't care for any single woman, i don't think it's possible for you to care about any women at all. second, "feminism ain't the thing making women unhappy" implies that happiness is the point--despite your comment in the paragraph immediately preceding.finally, dogs who are beaten don't wag their tails and obey their masters. they growl and snarl.demize,thank you for that link. it was an interesting read.
Post a Comment