RE: Feminism

RE: Feminism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Feminism (10/26/2009 8:48:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Why are you so willing to discount her difference in opinion as how she actually feels about it? Why are you so willing to put it off that she is doing this just to please a male? Does it make it easy to dismiss, because it is contrary to your cause? You did not dispute any of her points, but instead move the discussion to something personal about her, stating this opinion because she wants to please a male, and what is this tactic in a debate called? Anyone know? "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise An ad hominem argument has the basic form: Person 1 makes claim X There is something objectionable about Person 1 Therefore claim X is false " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Oh... wikipedia. Giving children sharp knives to play with. Yeah wikipedia now has stronger citation and source rules than many academic sites. If you like I can plaster pages of the same thing from edu sites. quote: The question was "how does a woman run an anti-feminist website?" The question was about the psychology of the individual. There's a difference between how someone is wrong and why they are wrong. How Elisabella is wrong is mostly relying on bad facts, and some bad logic. Stating she is wrong and using bad logic not engaging in debating and offering points as to why she is wrong. Instead a trait about her was used as a bad trait, and then followed by the logic of no wonder her statements are incorrect, look at this bad trait about her. Sorry, but it is classic ad hominem. Now if the why had been included it would be different quote: The question of why Elisabella, a seemingly intelligent, well-educated, and strong individual, persists in her faulty reliance on bad facts and questionable logic, was the question posed. And the suggested answer is that she is rewarded for her wrongness. It's not ad hominem when the person is the point. The point is her statements and beliefs. Not why she made them.

Lucienne -> RE: Feminism (10/26/2009 9:02:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne Oh... wikipedia. Giving children sharp knives to play with. quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Yeah wikipedia now has stronger citation and source rules than many academic sites. If you like I can plaster pages of the same thing from edu sites. That you read my comment as an attack on the reliability of wikipedia is all the evidence I need that further attempts to explain to you your error will be fruitless. I tried to get you to put the knife down. Carry on.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Feminism (10/26/2009 10:11:38 AM)
Yeah that is an easy out, but the retreat is still noted. That being the only part of my post that you could comment on is very telling. So do you have any substance to an argument against the beliefs she portrayed? I mean, come on, even the sharp knives insult was pretty lame.

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Feminism (10/26/2009 1:53:25 PM)
~FR~ This "women have all the choices in the world as long as they are the choices I dictate" thing just burns my ass. To me it's nobody's business whether a woman is drawn to a career or to stay home and raise the kids, it's their choice and neither is better or worse than the other. I wanted to kiss one of my doctors a while back when he said "the patient works at home as a homemaker". That's exactly it, she works at home, she just isn't paid money to do it.

ShaktiSama -> RE: Feminism (10/26/2009 2:06:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Shame on you for this analogy Shakti. I thought you were better than this. I've read this woman's blog this morning, Politesub. Believe me, the shoe fits better than I ever dreamed it would. People who think the fascists of yesteryear were substantially different than the fascists of today--male and female--are kidding themselves in a very dangerous way. The 3rd Reich and the Nazi Party used women to do a great many jobs. The Bush Reich and the associated party finds them useful as well. Both parties had very similar ideas about a woman's place in social and political life as well. And did you actually MISS the reply Elisabella gives about where her loyalties lie? She doesn't identify as a woman--she identifies by her race, social class and political affiliation. She defends the interests of WHITE anti-progressive fascism because that is what she perceives as "her kind". I've actually bothered to read up enough on this subject that I know when I'm seeing the exact same words and phrases trotted out by a new generation of fascist women. Ergo I do not bother to deal with them as if they are stunningly original and having Shiny Brand New Thoughts and Feelings. It's just the Same Old Shite on a Different Day. I'm not going to bother addressing the rest of the "I'm So Offended By The Comparison" crowd, either. People need to stop being offended by history and actually study it so that they don't keep repeating it. Google "Gertrud Scholtz-Klink" and you too can enjoy the original screening of this particular movie.

Louve00 -> RE: Feminism (10/26/2009 2:22:56 PM)
Well, I finally had time to read (most of) this whole thread. To the OP...I am in the majority of most of the women (and some men) posting their views on feminism. To me, feminism is equal rights. Equal rights that include not being ashamed to say you like football, or in not being ashamed of saying anything. It was not all too terribly long ago that women didn't even have the right to vote. I am grateful for the movements that allowed me to vote, to earn an honest wage, to voice my opinion on just about anything I have a notion to voice my opinion on. In the process of that gratefulness, I do not hold men (or the privilege men may get) in contempt, either. Sure, women can obsess over the fact that the world (even things in the US) aren't exactly equal, but they can also breathe easier that they're getting there. And to be quite honest, I'm kind of like Elisabella. I don't think I want the privileges I get because I'm a woman taken away from me, either. I took a maternity leave when I had my child, without fear of losing my job, and would expect to have it again. I don't want to have to change a tire, if a man's willing to do it for me (with a little side reference here that I can change a tire if I have to, but would certainly give up that "privilege" to any man who wanted it. I am proud of being a woman. I am proud of the association of a woman being soft, compassionate, intelligent, and nurturing. I don't want to give up those things to prove I am a man's equal. Mainly because I am not a man's equal. I sort of like it that way. And I don't know any men on CM I want to impress when I say that. Not looking for pats on the head. I just think like a black man embraces what he is, like a Jew embraces what they are, hell...like a frigging camel is a camel for that matter....I like being a woman and I like the things that are associated with a woman. And at the same time, am glad I have a voice...a right...to stand up and exercise my opinions. Albeit, I may not be taken completely seriously because I am a woman "by some men", I will not be taken that way "by all men". To me, thats enough of a difference.

Politesub53 -> RE: Feminism (10/26/2009 2:23:36 PM)
Im not offended by history, Im offended by your analogy.

ShaktiSama -> RE: Feminism (10/26/2009 2:31:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Im not offended by history, Im offended by your analogy. Tough. If the shoe fits, goose-step in it. And it's about time to stop kidding ourselves. Invading Iraq was not a polite visit from concerned friends and Guantanamo Bay was not a fucking day spa.

PeonForHer -> RE: Feminism (10/26/2009 3:54:10 PM)
Elisabella, I was wondering, do you agree with the general thrust of the arguments stated on this webpage? http://degreesofmoderation.blogspot.com/2008/04/conservative-feminist-defined-holds.html It's a site that tries to define 'conservative feminism'.

Politesub53 -> RE: Feminism (10/26/2009 4:37:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama Tough. If the shoe fits, goose-step in it. And it's about time to stop kidding ourselves. Invading Iraq was not a polite visit from concerned friends and Guantanamo Bay was not a fucking day spa. Ironic that you say that. I have been saying the same about both Iraq and Guantanamo on the other forum since the day I joined CM. I feel sorry for you if you fail to see what I am getting at, with your comparison of a poster you diagree with, to a guard at a death camp. If you dont like that assumption, well as you say...Tough

Elisabella -> RE: Feminism (10/26/2009 4:52:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aynne88 quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama quote: ORIGINAL: Aynne88 I am genuinely curious how a woman can run an anti-feminist site. The same way a Jew can help to run a Nazi death camp. They were called kapos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapo_(concentration_camp) Women like Elisabella are the modern day equivalent. Nothing new or special about it. Some people have a higher allegiance to an oppressive system than they ever will have to members of "their own kind"--whatever we might construe that phrase to mean. As for her posts about paternity leave--yeah, it is increasingly clear the more she talks how completely ignorant she is on virtually every topic. No one who talks this way has ever brought a child into the world; judging by her moronic dribbling about how men should only take "a few days off" when a newborn comes into the house, I'd be surprised if she's even been responsible for babysitting any infant for more than an hour in her life. In short, she has no idea what she is talking about with regard to any subject. But she sure does love to say what "the Man" wants to hear, doesn't she? [:'(] Seriously, I have never heard a girl speak solely and transparently for the purpose of pleasing men as this. It is mind bogglingly apparent that Elisabella only says what she believes the male gender wants her to say, hoping for a pat on the head. I found the website, it's on word press, it's an easy google search. It also speaks volumes. The entries re: President Obama alone are enlightening to say the least Shakti. laughs Now that is funny. First of all there are only three men on the planet I'll temper my words for. My fiance, my father, and my brother. Although there's only one woman (my mother) now that my grandmother's passed, so maybe I do 'please men' more than I please women. I can't help the genetic makeup of my family though. See the thing is, you have it in your head that a traditional life for women is this awful submissive role we're forced into. I guess that's why right now I'm laying in bed reading collarme while my fiance is at work. Yeah housework does suck, but at least I can do it on my own schedule not my boss's. I'm going to get a job outside the home while we save for a house but you really don't know what a relief it is to not have to be the primary breadwinner. Especially because I get awful menstrual cycles and my fiance understands that 3 days out of the month I'm totally useless. I don't think a boss would be so understanding. My fiance doesn't cook or do laundry or any of that, but honestly unless I'm really exhausted I like cooking for him. I like being able to do that for him, for him to think as he leaves work that he's just going to have to sit down and relax and he'll get dinner. It's actually really empowering to have the home as my domain, to be the CEO of it or whatever. I'm sorry but you are just so off base with your accusations that it makes me laugh. I'm not a victim of the patriarchy, I'm a spoiled middle class housewife who gets to use my inheritance on handbags instead of rent. Oh. The horror. Poor fucking me. laughs Go on now and save more women from their own choices. I'm sure they'll be soooo grateful.

Elisabella -> RE: Feminism (10/26/2009 4:59:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama She doesn't identify as a woman--she identifies by her race, social class and political affiliation. She defends the interests of WHITE anti-progressive fascism because that is what she perceives as "her kind". Oh that's rich. Your last post was about how I should stop collaborating with the oppressors and be loyal to my own kind, but apparently you get to decide who "my kind" is. I do identify as a woman. I identify as a white, middle class, college educated, suburban, American woman who has expatriated to Australia. "Woman" is in there. It's actually a strong part of my identity. It just isn't so overwhelming that it will override the rest of my identity. What's more important - gender or nationality? Gender or race? Gender or social class? Which shapes you more as a person? Can anyone really answer that?

Elisabella -> RE: Feminism (10/26/2009 5:02:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Elisabella, I was wondering, do you agree with the general thrust of the arguments stated on this webpage? http://degreesofmoderation.blogspot.com/2008/04/conservative-feminist-defined-holds.html It's a site that tries to define 'conservative feminism'. Yes, definitely. There are a few points that I'm iffy about, but the vast majority of their beliefs are mine as well. Thanks for the link BTW. [:)]

Elisabella -> RE: Feminism (10/26/2009 5:07:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf quote: ORIGINAL: aidan quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf It would have been nice to have taken a few days off after the birth of my kids, but with the first one I was working a full time, and two part time jobs, and after the second one I was working two full time jobs. I did get up with them in the middle of the night since the female I was married to at the time had very little maternal instincts or sense of responsibility. And it wouldn't it have been better if you could have actually taken a more significant amount of time to do that crucial initial child-rearing, where your wife apparently would not or could not? Sure it would, if I had a better job at the time, that offered more PTO, I would have taken the time. It had nothing to do with the "cause" you are portraying. You see in my situation, both times, it is exactly as Elisabella said, I needed to work to pay the bills. quote: But no, I hear you. How about the Cambodians who sold-out their family members to the Khemer Rouge and then went to run the work camps? Or the African tribes who would sell those of their neighboring villages to the Dutch and Portugeuse? Those fit a little better for you? No those comparisons would be just as ludicrous. Kind of like saying that a hill and a mountain are the same, because they are both an elevation of a land mass. Yeah this says what I was trying to say in a much better way. Re-reading my posts made it seem as though I thought fathers shouldn't be there to raise their children. I don't think that at all, and if the family has enough money that neither parent has to work then yes it would be the ideal situation to have both parents at home, provided they were doing charity work or something that would give the child a sense of ambition. But for most families the choice is either take a long unpaid break or go back to work after a week, and I would respect my fiance more if he was able to tear himself away from the child in order to support the family. Of course, I'd stop by work with the baby for lunch every chance I got, and I'd love him all the more for stepping up and being a man about it.

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Feminism (10/26/2009 5:10:45 PM)
Thanks for clarifying Bella. I was getting that impression which didn't jibe with what I know about you [:)]

ShaktiSama -> RE: Feminism (10/26/2009 5:15:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Ironic that you say that. I have been saying the same about both Iraq and Guantanamo on the other forum since the day I joined CM. I see. So it isn't that you're deluded and sentimental about fascism in general. You just don't know enough about the Nazi party line for women to recognize it when it's being regurgitated in your face WORD FOR WORD by modern neo-conservatives. This woman's posts are indistinguishable from the letters written by Gerda Borrmann sixty years ago. Some things never change, and this is one of them. Sorry if being "better than that" means that you have to staple your eyes shut and stuff your head in the sand, but I refuse to do that. Anti-feminism is nothing new; its rhetoric and aims are the same today as they were in Nazi Germany, and the women who serve as kapos are also the same in both character and kind. There were plenty of feminists who died at Ravensbrück. I haven't forgotten that women like Elisabella helped put them there. Forgive me if I refuse to pretend that this didn't happen, or that it won't happen again as soon as she and her ilk get the chance.

Elisabella -> RE: Feminism (10/26/2009 5:22:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Ironic that you say that. I have been saying the same about both Iraq and Guantanamo on the other forum since the day I joined CM. I see. So it isn't that you're deluded and sentimental about fascism in general. You just don't know enough about the Nazi party line for women to recognize it when it's being regurgitated in your face WORD FOR WORD by modern neo-conservatives. This woman's posts are indistinguishable from the letters written by Gerda Borrmann sixty years ago. Some things never change, and this is one of them. Sorry if being "better than that" means that you have to staple your eyes shut and stuff your head in the sand, but I refuse to do that. Anti-feminism is nothing new; its rhetoric and aims are the same today as they were in Nazi Germany, and the women who serve as kapos are also the same in both character and kind. There were plenty of feminists who died at Ravensbrück. I haven't forgotten that women like Elisabella helped put them there. Forgive me if I refuse to pretend that this didn't happen, or that it won't happen again as soon as she and her ilk get the chance. Shakti I'm going to say this only once. I don't want to kill you, imprison you, torture you, starve you, or put you in a gas chamber. We have a difference in political opinion and like we agreed back on page 4 or 5 or whatever, we'll both work to change society to shape it into what we want it to be. If the only way my beliefs could be actualized was to forcibly silence dissent, they wouldn't be very good beliefs. We're both smarter than this empty rhetoric game. Please give it a rest.

Politesub53 -> RE: Feminism (10/26/2009 5:26:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Ironic that you say that. I have been saying the same about both Iraq and Guantanamo on the other forum since the day I joined CM. I see. So it isn't that you're deluded and sentimental about fascism in general. You just don't know enough about the Nazi party line for women to recognize it when it's being regurgitated in your face WORD FOR WORD by modern neo-conservatives. This woman's posts are indistinguishable from the letters written by Gerda Borrmann sixty years ago. Some things never change, and this is one of them. Sorry if being "better than that" means that you have to staple your eyes shut and stuff your head in the sand, but I refuse to do that. Anti-feminism is nothing new; its rhetoric and aims are the same today as they were in Nazi Germany, and the women who serve as kapos are also the same in both character and kind. There were plenty of feminists who died at Ravensbrück. I haven't forgotten that women like Elisabella helped put them there. Forgive me if I refuse to pretend that this didn't happen, or that it won't happen again as soon as she and her ilk get the chance. Your ignorance is showing. If you think I am deluded or sentimental about facism let me just remind you it was you, and not I, who introduced talk of the Nazis into the thread. Read my posts on off topic you will see just how sentimental I am on the subject. Frankly I couldnt care about Elizabella or her views. I wasnt, and would not, defend her. I would defend my right to consider your analogy offensive. You can keep on attacking me for that, but it wont change my view, or the fact you made the post in the first place.

ShaktiSama -> RE: Feminism (10/26/2009 5:44:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Oh that's rich. Your last post was about how I should stop collaborating with the oppressors and be loyal to my own kind, but apparently you get to decide who "my kind" is. Actually, I stopped talking to you long ago, Elisabella. And I would never presume to tell you what you "should" do. I'm not a vapid neo-con cheerleader, and for this reason I cannot give you any advice on how best to pursue your goals. I just cordially wish you failure in all things you attempt in life, including reproduction. Also, for the record? I do not consider the system that you worship and adore to be oppressive to everyone. For example, it seems to be just groovy for some white middle-class males, and for the percentage of women who want nothing more in life but to grovel at the feet of those men, eat their table scraps and be patted on the head and called "good girl" at the end of the day. Women like YOU obviously love the system enough to hurl yourself onto your belly and lick its boots. In your eyes it can do no wrong; no contradiction is sufficient to dent your vapid enthusiasm for universal female subjugation. This system isn't oppressive to you; it's oppressive to women and men who want real equality. Equal power, equal opportunity, equal rights and equal responsibility. Not a system of limited privileges granted or rescinded to people of either sex by a male-dominated power structure that giveth and taketh away human rights from on high as it deems fit, without accountability or recourse. I fully recognize that you identify yourself as "female". And I'm not one of those people who finds it surprising that you can reconcile being female with being evil. People who fight for an uglier, stupider, more unjust world come in both genders. Always have. One point to clarify, however: as a feminist, I have zero interest in saving YOU from your choices. But since you choose to politicize your choices and dictate them to others? Saving the rest of the world from your choices does interest me, yes. There has never been and there will never be a time when middle class white women will NOT be allowed to stay home, if they can find a man who 1) can afford to pay their bills on a single income and 2) wants a stay-at-home wife. The question is about what other options should be available for men and women who DON'T want this arrangement, and whether the world needs to bend over backwards to make sure that all economic power is in the hands of a few men, just so that a few women like you won't ever have to worry their pretty little heads about getting a job.

PeonForHer -> RE: Feminism (10/26/2009 5:52:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Elisabella, I was wondering, do you agree with the general thrust of the arguments stated on this webpage? http://degreesofmoderation.blogspot.com/2008/04/conservative-feminist-defined-holds.html It's a site that tries to define 'conservative feminism'. Yes, definitely. There are a few points that I'm iffy about, but the vast majority of their beliefs are mine as well. Thanks for the link BTW. [:)] Then, you are a feminist, Elisabella. You're not an anti-feminist, though you may well be an anti-radical-feminist. Your blog focuses a great deal on radical feminists and this branch is a long way from mainstream feminism. To exemplify feminism as a whole by citing the likes of Andrea Dworkin is like lumping Gordon Brown, or the average trade unionist, in with Karl Marx. Points three and four on that site state that a conservative feminist: Demands equal pay for equal work. Understands there are differences between genders. To deny biology is inherently imbecilic. Men are able to do many things that require strength that women either cannot or prefer not to do – Women are able to do many things given their biological make-up that men are incapable of doing. Celebrate who you are. Those are very widely accepted by mainstream feminists. Re point four: Few are willing to state that everything, absolutely everything, about the differences between the sexes is down to nurture and not nature. It'll generally only vary in the matter of degree. On the other hand, re point three: the demand for equal pay for equal work still hasn't been satisfied and white, middle class, educated women may well be in a better position to know this than others. This is why such women, when they fight for equal pay may - completely legitimately - call themselves feminists. They can trace a very clear line from themselves right back to the Pankhursts and the other suffragists (who themselves were mainly white, educated and middle class). As I said earlier, feminism is about women being able to be who they are and doing what they want to do. In setting up your blog, in writing here on this forum, you've benefitted from feminism. Yes, I know we owe the existence of computers and the Internet to a few men. Yet the problem's more fundamental. For instance, I know of schools in the UK that have only recently extended teaching of computing to girls. Without recent feminists doing their stuff, you may not now be typing on this forum nor, for that matter, even know what a forum is; or - perhaps more importantly - care. In general, I don't believe that you're at all clear about who you're attacking when you set yourself against feminism as a whole!

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125