RE: Feminism

RE: Feminism (Full Version)

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

Message

Lucienne -> RE: Feminism (11/2/2009 7:42:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea more words You are white-knighting a group of people you apparently know nothing about. That is tedious.

PeonForHer -> RE: Feminism (11/2/2009 7:50:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne quote: I'm sorry - which leap? I don't know what you mean by this. Did you bother googling Richard Gardner prior to asking me this question? Yes. I'm still not sure what you mean, though.

Lucienne -> RE: Feminism (11/2/2009 8:06:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne quote: I'm sorry - which leap? I don't know what you mean by this. Did you bother googling Richard Gardner prior to asking me this question? Yes. I'm still not sure what you mean, though. Let's just say that Dr. Gardner had some... problematic... advocacy in his past. And a fair amount of whitewashing has gone into ignoring that, despite his ongoing efforts to minimize the reality and severity of certain... issues.

undergroundsea -> RE: Feminism (11/2/2009 8:33:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne more lack of answers. You are being snarky because you have no answers. quote: Lucienne: I don't understand why my repeated references to "self-described MRAs" are so easy to ignore. It is a title. Notice the capitalization. It is a title that people assign to themselves. For the most part we have used the acronym MRA. A self-described MRA could then be interpreted to be a self-identified men's rights activist (not a title but a description), a self-identified men's rights advocate (not a title but a description), or, as you claim, a self-identified member of a group called Men's Rights Activist. There is a news story about a group called The National Center for Men which describes the group as men's rights activists. The term is not only a title but a description. First, if you direct your comments at one such group, there is more room for the possibility that this particular group has an agenda which you rightfully find worthy of contempt and disdain. However, it is still up to you to explain why you find their agenda contempt worthy, which you appear to be dodging. Second, you have done an ineffective job of communicating that you refer to a specific group. See text below: quote: Lucienne: Generally, MRAs are what they accuse feminists of being - angry, narrow-minded, self-absorbed and self-pitying. At its core, men's rights activism, is about control of others. You speak of MRAs as an acronym and then you speak of men's rights activism in general. This statement does not convey that you speak of a particular group, which then forms the basis for future posts. Also, see text below: quote: undergroundsea: I am interpreting men's rights advocates to mean groups that seek to represent men's rights, which could include groups that seek fairness for men in a way that is also fair to women, and groups that seek advantages for men at expense of women. I clearly state that I am interpreting MRAs as a collection of groups. Then would have been the time to clarify that you speak of a specific group rather than another vague response with references to doing google searches. You have a tendency to make vague statements and then expect people to go google and figure out what your vague statements mean, which is an unreasonable expectation. Rather than expecting people to do your work for you, why not explain your thoughts yourself and work on more clear communication? Cheers, Sea

Lucienne -> RE: Feminism (11/2/2009 8:48:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne more lack of answers. You are being snarky because you have no answers. I've noticed the snark bar is set pretty low around here. No... I'm not being snarky. I know snark. Snark is a good friend of mine. This has not been snark. quote: You have a tendency to make vague statements and then expect people to go google and figure out what your vague statements mean, which is an unreasonable expectation. Rather than expecting people to do your work for you, why not explain your thoughts yourself and work on more clear communication? Yeah... I'm not stomping my feet on the ground saying "Understand me!!!" I've responded to requests for information based on my own personal cost/benefit analysis. I try to avoid wasting a lot of time conversing with people who seem to be actively misreading me. If my goal was to communicate with the lowest common denominator, then, yes, expecting people to avail themselves of google to educate themselves would be unreasonable. That's not my goal. I'd go into politics if it were.

undergroundsea -> RE: Feminism (11/2/2009 8:59:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne I try to avoid wasting a lot of time conversing with people who seem to be actively misreading me. If my goal was to communicate with the lowest common denominator, then, yes, expecting people to avail themselves of google to educate themselves would be unreasonable. That's not my goal. I'd go into politics if it were. You were specifically asked why you felt MRAs deserved disdain and contempt, which gave you the opportunity to clarify what you meant. If you don't wish to be misread, why not respond with greater clarity? In my opinion, your initial posts were unclear about what you meant if you spoke of a specific group of people, and that, instead of clarifying what you meant after knowing how MRAs was being interpreted, you continued to give a vague response, which made me wonder if you were intentionally trying to be annoying. Cheers, Sea

GoDolphins -> RE: Feminism (11/2/2009 9:14:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne quote: ORIGINAL: GoDolphins quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth quote: ORIGINAL: GoDolphins Well you know, we all weren't blessed with photographic memories to remember that far back. which is why the interwebz is your friend. It's not hard to find good articles and books which will teach you what you are too young to have experienced. I'm not really sure what this is even trying to prove to be honest, unless it is simply an insult of my age. Am I supposed to go back all 23 pages so I don't accidentally happen to repeat something someone said? I don't think she understood that you were responding to something that I said and thought your reference to "that far back" was a larger historical point not a few pages back on the thread. At least that's how I read it. Indeed that was the case, my bad. Thanks Lucienne and apologies GoDolphins. All right, apology accepted. If I sounded a bit jerky in my response I'm sorry too. I had to deal with someone twisting my words around on another thread and let it get to me here I think.

eihwaz -> RE: Feminism (11/2/2009 9:45:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama quote: ORIGINAL: Andalusite I hold doors for anyone who is within a few steps (or further, if their hands are full), and enjoy it when people do so for me. I've never witnessed anyone yelling over someone holding a door or offering their seat on the bus or whatever, online or offline. No, me neither. I've come to believe over time that this is basically a Feminist Defamation Myth <snip> Actually, I would get slammed as a "male chauvist pig" by women in the late 1960s and early 1970s for holding doors open for them. I never took their rudeness as representative of feminism or feminists. But the movement of the time definitely had some rough edges (which antifeminists like to cite). At the time, "ladies first" was very much linked with the cultural apparatus of patriarchy, so I understand why the door custom rankled. Feminism entailed a huge shift in attitudes and it took a while for people to work out social customs appropriate for a society based on gender equality (still very much a work-in-progress, I realize), e.g., figuring out how to have gender equality and cordiality and courtesy between people. In certain situations -- for example, hosts and their guests as well as hierarchical relationships in, say, corporations -- allowing someone to precede you through a doorway still does carry a social meaning in addition to simple courtesy.

Elisabella -> RE: Feminism (11/3/2009 3:12:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne I try to avoid wasting a lot of time conversing with people who seem to be actively misreading me. If my goal was to communicate with the lowest common denominator, then, yes, expecting people to avail themselves of google to educate themselves would be unreasonable. That's not my goal. I'd go into politics if it were. You were specifically asked why you felt MRAs deserved disdain and contempt, which gave you the opportunity to clarify what you meant. If you don't wish to be misread, why not respond with greater clarity? In my opinion, your initial posts were unclear about what you meant if you spoke of a specific group of people, and that, instead of clarifying what you meant after knowing how MRAs was being interpreted, you continued to give a vague response, which made me wonder if you were intentionally trying to be annoying. Cheers, Sea Seriously don't even bother. It's like asking a staunch Democrat or Republican "why do you have a problem with the other party" and expecting a real answer. You'll get the same answer from both sides (democrat/republican, feminist/MRA) just with different specifics. Interestingly my original response to MRA's was the same as Lucienne's - except I phrased it "oh great it's feminists with testicles." I do think it's hilarious now that there are MRA's, as well as feminists, and both groups are claiming their gender is the oppressed one. I can see instances of both being correct, but only if I look hard. The way I see MRA's is that they're a bunch of guys who got sick of hearing how "patriarchy oppresses women" and decided to band together and say "you know what, fuck off, we've got it rough too." I honestly wish they'd both disappear, this gender war thing is really unhealthy for both genders.

Lucienne -> RE: Feminism (11/3/2009 5:04:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne I try to avoid wasting a lot of time conversing with people who seem to be actively misreading me. If my goal was to communicate with the lowest common denominator, then, yes, expecting people to avail themselves of google to educate themselves would be unreasonable. That's not my goal. I'd go into politics if it were. You were specifically asked why you felt MRAs deserved disdain and contempt, which gave you the opportunity to clarify what you meant. If you don't wish to be misread, why not respond with greater clarity? In my opinion, your initial posts were unclear about what you meant if you spoke of a specific group of people, and that, instead of clarifying what you meant after knowing how MRAs was being interpreted, you continued to give a vague response, which made me wonder if you were intentionally trying to be annoying. I gave a fairly specific answer. You apparently want footnotes. I don't consider providing them a valuable use of my time. I've repeatedly identified the specific group of people I'm talking about as "self-described MRAs." Qualifying as "self-described" should make it clear that I'm not talking about every person who might agree with a point on the MRA agenda. I'm talking about guys who call themselves MRAs. If I made a point about "self-described Yankees fans," would you think I was talking about everyone who ever appreciated a play by the Yankees? Your continued unwillingness to recognize this point makes me wonder if you are being intentionally annoying.

Lucienne -> RE: Feminism (11/3/2009 5:09:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella The way I see MRA's is that they're a bunch of guys who got sick of hearing how "patriarchy oppresses women" and decided to band together and say "you know what, fuck off, we've got it rough too." I honestly wish they'd both disappear, this gender war thing is really unhealthy for both genders. A gender war would be unhealthy. But that's not what feminism is engaged in.

undergroundsea -> RE: Feminism (11/3/2009 5:33:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne I gave a fairly specific answer. You apparently want footnotes. I don't consider providing them a valuable use of my time. You did not give a specific answer. You attributed to MRAs some adjectives, and did the same thing you accuse them of doing per your tendency to be incongruent. A specific answer would have been of the form: They believe in X and you think X is wrong, with an explanation of your reasoning where appropriate. You have time for sarcastic remarks but not time to explain your reasoning? quote: I've repeatedly identified the specific group of people I'm talking about as "self-described MRAs." Qualifying as "self-described" should make it clear that I'm not talking about every person who might agree with a point on the MRA agenda. Post 484 explains why what you consider to be an effective attempt to communicate was, in fact, ineffective. Cheers, Sea

Lucienne -> RE: Feminism (11/3/2009 5:50:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne I gave a fairly specific answer. You apparently want footnotes. I don't consider providing them a valuable use of my time. You did not give a specific answer. You attributed to MRAs some adjectives, and did the same thing you accuse them of doing per your tendency to be incongruent. A specific answer would have been of the form: They believe in X and you think X is wrong, with an explanation of your reasoning where appropriate. You have time for sarcastic remarks but not time to explain your reasoning? My time is mine to use as I see fit. As a general rule, yes, sarcastic remarks do take up less time than explaining one's reasoning. Particularly when the person who wants it explained is trying so hard to not understand and thinks I have a "tendency to be incongruent." But in this case, my remarks were not sarcastic. quote: quote: I've repeatedly identified the specific group of people I'm talking about as "self-described MRAs." Qualifying as "self-described" should make it clear that I'm not talking about every person who might agree with a point on the MRA agenda. Post 484 explains why what you consider to be an effective attempt to communicate was, in fact, ineffective. I'd agree that post 484 demonstrates why it was ineffective. Edit to fix: holy fuck up of the quote function

undergroundsea -> RE: Feminism (11/3/2009 6:13:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Seriously don't even bother. It's like asking a staunch Democrat or Republican "why do you have a problem with the other party" and expecting a real answer. You'll get the same answer from both sides (democrat/republican, feminist/MRA) just with different specifics. Interestingly my original response to MRA's was the same as Lucienne's - except I phrased it "oh great it's feminists with testicles." I do think it's hilarious now that there are MRA's, as well as feminists, and both groups are claiming their gender is the oppressed one. I can see instances of both being correct, but only if I look hard. If I asked a Republican about objections with the other party, the response might be that the other party supports gay marriage and other similar information, which can then make for useful information or, possibly, further discussion. A response that they are a list of adjectives, in my opinion, lacks intellectual content and does not allow me to see how this person thinks and how sound this thinking is. I have difficulty with Lucienne's responses for this reason, for her vague references and communication style, and the snark with which she claims to be so well acquainted. Feminism includes advocacy for women's rights and I do not oppose feminism as a whole. By drawing upon empathy and fairness and because of women I love, I support efforts that help them attain fairness. I do not know details of the various forms or missions of those who seek rights for women and men. I expect that neither feminists nor men's right advocates have a uniform agenda or take only one form. I expect that each type has those who are fairminded and those who are not. I expect that in some cases a push that is not fair might not be deliberate but simply because one has not seen the other side of the argument. I think those with opposing perspectives can effectively discuss a matter if they have appropriate mindsets and use appropriate communication techniques. Cheers, Sea

PeonForHer -> RE: Feminism (11/3/2009 6:30:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea I think those with opposing perspectives can effectively discuss a matter if they have appropriate mindsets and use appropriate communication techniques. Right . . . so, I guess we'd better stop the thread here, then . . . . [:(]

undergroundsea -> RE: Feminism (11/3/2009 7:05:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne Particularly when the person who wants it explained is trying so hard to not understand and thinks I have a "tendency to be incongruent." But in this case, my remarks were not sarcastic. Here is the course of the conversation. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne In my experience, MRAs are fully deserving of all the contempt and disdain they receive quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea I do not know enough about MRAs to say whether your statement is right or wrong but I am curious what about them makes you think they deserve contempt and disdain? quote: ORIGINAL Lucienne: Generally, MRAs are what they accuse feminists of being - angry, narrow-minded, self-absorbed and self-pitying. At its core, men's rights activism, is about control of others. Men fighting for the right to control the uterus of their sex partner, fighting for the right to control their soon to be ex-wives, fighting for the right to control their children. It's a belief system suffused with notions of possession. quote: ORIGINAL undergroundsea: Thanks for the response. I do not know enough about MRAs and how they compare to feminism to comment in an informed manner. What do you consider to be steps that are designed to control a soon to be ex-wife, or children? Is it that I am trying so hard not to understand by asking you about your reasoning, or are you trying so hard to be not understood by not offering your reasoning and, as you did initially, ignoring the question? The references to incongruence came after this bit of conversation and did not affect your answers up to this point. Incidentally, even if you capitalized Men's Right Activists once to suggest that you use them as a title, I see multiple instances that suggest you used the term to refer to all persons who identify as men's right advocates or activists by description across various groups: quote: Lucienne: Although I am suspicious of anyone who calls themselves a "men's rights activist." That's not a capitalized title and appears as a description. quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 That is not fair Lucienne there are plenty of men's rights activists that seek nothing more than equal treatment often with regards to rights over children in a divorce proceedings and how those rights are dispensed. He does not use it as a title and uses it as a description. quote: Lucienne: Do you have any specific examples of the MRAs you have in mind? You did not say make reference to a title and continue to respond to his use as a description. You do not refer to a specific group of people but to any group that might be considered to be men's rights activists and are asking for examples. So then which is it? Is it all MRAs as a collective group as you have said in prior posts, or is it a subset of the MRAs and you need to know which specific group is being discussed? quote: You didn't identify the group. From the way you spoke, I assumed you were talking about an american group. My comment was not made with the benefit of knowing exactly which group you were talking about. Your repeated insistence on extending the MRA label far broader than I would caused me to misunderstand what you were saying. Here you seem to suggest you were assuming talk of a specific group. If it is all MRAs you discuss, why does it matter if he did not identify the group? So then which is it? Is it all MRAs as you have said in prior posts, or is it a subset of the MRAs and you need to know which specific group is being discussed? quote: I don't understand why my repeated references to "self-described MRAs" are so easy to ignore. It is a title. Notice the capitalization. It is a title that people assign to themselves. You can continue to say the people are repeatedly insisting on extending the MRA label too far, or you can continue to say that they are ignoring your repeated references to self-described MRAs (as if that explains everything). I will continue to say that your words are inconsistent and incongruent within themselves and it is not that other people are ignoring what you are saying or trying not to understand, but that you are not presenting the information effectively and then blaming them. Cheers, Sea

Lucienne -> RE: Feminism (11/3/2009 7:06:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea I think those with opposing perspectives can effectively discuss a matter if they have appropriate mindsets and use appropriate communication techniques. Well, yes. First you start by being open in your opposition. You state "I do not agree that MRAs are worthy of contempt and disdain for the following reasons." You don't play faux naive curious interlocutor and then get pissy because the opposition won't play along with the Socratic dialogue you have mapped out in your head. I figured out awhile ago that you are so enamored of the idea of being opposed to what I'm saying, you're blindly ignoring all the ways in which we agree. That dynamic has happened a lot on this thread. You think of MRAs as this large umbrella term applying to a wide range of people, I think of it as a narrower class. Even if you think my definition is wrong, that shouldn't inhibit your ability to understand that my contempt and disdain is directed at that narrow class. That you can't acknowledge that makes me think you're not worth the time investment to discuss the substance you are allegedly interested in.

Lucienne -> RE: Feminism (11/3/2009 7:26:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea quote: ORIGINAL Lucienne: Generally, MRAs are what they accuse feminists of being - angry, narrow-minded, self-absorbed and self-pitying. At its core, men's rights activism, is about control of others. Men fighting for the right to control the uterus of their sex partner, fighting for the right to control their soon to be ex-wives, fighting for the right to control their children. It's a belief system suffused with notions of possession. quote: ORIGINAL undergroundsea: Thanks for the response. I do not know enough about MRAs and how they compare to feminism to comment in an informed manner. What do you consider to be steps that are designed to control a soon to be ex-wife, or children? That isn't the entirety of my original response. And your next question would probably require a thousand word response. Yeah, I ignored it. And seeing how you've followed up, I think I was wise to do so. quote: You can continue to say the people are repeatedly insisting on extending the MRA label too far, or you can continue to say that they are ignoring your repeated references to self-described MRAs (as if that explains everything). I will continue to say that your words are inconsistent and incongruent within themselves and it is not that other people are ignoring what you are saying or trying not to understand, but that you are not presenting the information effectively and then blaming them. Now, now, I thought the incongruence came from my objection to activism that would challenge my alleged (and unidentified) privileges. You can't even follow your own argument.

undergroundsea -> RE: Feminism (11/3/2009 7:42:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne Well, yes. First you start by being open in your opposition. You state "I do not agree that MRAs are worthy of contempt and disdain for the following reasons." You don't play faux naive curious interlocutor and then get pissy because the opposition won't play along with the Socratic dialogue you have mapped out in your head. I figured out awhile ago that you are so enamored of the idea of being opposed to what I'm saying, you're blindly ignoring all the ways in which we agree. That dynamic has happened a lot on this thread. I had not encountered the term MRAs prior to this thread and stated up front that I did not know much about them. Still, intuitively I felt that what you said was an incorrect generalization. In such a circumstance, it is reasonable for me to ask why you feel they are worthy of disdain and contempt because your response would allow me to see on what you base your generalization. Indeed I was skeptical of such a generalization. However, I asked you in a polite manner and if your reasoning has basis, it would counter the doubts. It is your choice to take offense simply because I was skeptical of your generalization. quote: You think of MRAs as this large umbrella term applying to a wide range of people, I think of it as a narrower class. Even if you think my definition is wrong, that shouldn't inhibit your ability to understand that my contempt and disdain is directed at that narrow class. That you can't acknowledge that makes me think you're not worth the time investment to discuss the substance you are allegedly interested in. It is your responsibility to pick the words that convey what you mean. If you mean a narrow class, why not say a narrow class versus all MRAs. Otherwise the result is the same as if one was to oppose radical feminists and refer to feminists as a whole, or if one was opposed to a group of radical men and referred to men as a whole. It is imprecise use of terminology that then creates misunderstandings. quote: Now, now, I thought the incongruence came from my objection to activism that would challenge my alleged (and unidentified) privileges. You can't even follow your own argument. As explained in my prior posts, you show incongruence all over the place: in your conflicting positions, in your conflicting words that do not make sense in principle, and in your conflicting words that say one thing in one post and another in a subsequent post. In any case, this conversation has now become a matter of egos and is past being constructive, for which reason I am content to conclude it. Thank you for your responses. Cheers, Sea

Lucienne -> RE: Feminism (11/3/2009 8:00:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undergroundsea In any case, this conversation has now become a matter of egos and is past being constructive, for which reason I am content to conclude it. Thank you for your responses. Just now it's become a matter of egos? You don't think we wandered off the path into meta territory awhile ago? I didn't take offense to your intuited opposition to my statements. In fact, I've taken quite a bit of amusement from your every use of the word "intuit." I've been entertained by a guy who claims to have never heard the term MRA before intuiting his way to a definition of the term that he maintains I should work with. You find me incongruent. I find you paradoxical.

Page: << < prev 23 24 [25] 26 27 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

9.399414E-02