RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist?

RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (Full Version)

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

Message

LadyAngelika -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/18/2009 9:27:58 AM)
Ok Lucienne & hopelesslyInvo, I understand you two are having a rather heated and lengthy debate, and I understand that at first it seemed to be tied into the original topic, but it has since long gone way off course. Would you mind perhaps taking it elsewhere? Or at the very least, bring it back to the core issue of feminism. I'm not trying to shut you up. Just trying to keep the integrity of this thread. Thanks! I'm sure you'll understand I mean no offense ;-) - LA

Lucienne -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/18/2009 9:54:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika Ok Lucienne & hopelesslyInvo, I understand you two are having a rather heated and lengthy debate, and I understand that at first it seemed to be tied into the original topic, but it has since long gone way off course. Would you mind perhaps taking it elsewhere? Or at the very least, bring it back to the core issue of feminism. I'm not trying to shut you up. Just trying to keep the integrity of this thread. For me, the core issue of feminism is respecting the autonomy and humanity of individuals. I understand why this discussion seems off topic to some, but I take a more holistic approach. I'm happy to share the feminist banner with people who don't put more thought into it than "equal pay for equal work," or whatever non-controversial phrasing of the ultimate goal is. But in terms of methods to achieve that goal, I know there is a great deal of disagreement. For me, promoting reproductive rights and LGBT anti-discrimination laws and attitudes is part and parcel of the feminist mission. I don't think we can continue to improve without supporting these causes. I don't consider myself a radical. Perhaps others do. I also don't consider this off-topic, but you don't seem interested in a detailed explanation as to why I don't think it's off-topic, so I'll just leave it at that.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/18/2009 9:57:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika I received a message today from a man who wrote that he believed in being a gentleman, opening the doors for women, being chivalrous, and liked being with women who could appreciate this, not like all those woman-libers. (Two B's). Alright. I see his point. Then again, where the hell would we be right now without the Norma Rae's of this world (and every other slighted person, abridged, regardless of gender). I'd say my ideologies are probably more alilgned (typo) with post-feminism or third wave feminism, though I hate putting labels on things. Anyhow, this just got me wondering how many dominant women consider themselves feminists or not. Or do they identify with something else. - LA Well....I'm a sub (male)...wasn't included but I'll tell you....I fucking HATE "feminism". It always means something new to each generation. (Men can never stay in front of it). One year it's "we control our bodies" (like we didn't get that?), the next year it's "You don't control our bodies", the year after that it's "why don't you care about my body?", the year after (natch) it's "I love my body" (we do as well). (We always have). Feminism is whatever women say it is....and men just sit around waiting for the storm to blow over. (That's what we do). It's our job. You have the right to your opinion. That is what these message boards are for. No matter how passive agressive you are in stating it. What I do no appreciate however is your pointing out of spelling mistakes. Could you explain to me please your rationale for such uncouth behaviour? - LA No. (I don't understand it myself).

LadyAngelika -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/18/2009 10:33:46 AM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika Ok Lucienne & hopelesslyInvo, I understand you two are having a rather heated and lengthy debate, and I understand that at first it seemed to be tied into the original topic, but it has since long gone way off course. Would you mind perhaps taking it elsewhere? Or at the very least, bring it back to the core issue of feminism. I'm not trying to shut you up. Just trying to keep the integrity of this thread. For me, the core issue of feminism is respecting the autonomy and humanity of individuals. I understand why this discussion seems off topic to some, but I take a more holistic approach. I'm happy to share the feminist banner with people who don't put more thought into it than "equal pay for equal work," or whatever non-controversial phrasing of the ultimate goal is. But in terms of methods to achieve that goal, I know there is a great deal of disagreement. For me, promoting reproductive rights and LGBT anti-discrimination laws and attitudes is part and parcel of the feminist mission. I don't think we can continue to improve without supporting these causes. I don't consider myself a radical. Perhaps others do. I also don't consider this off-topic, but you don't seem interested in a detailed explanation as to why I don't think it's off-topic, so I'll just leave it at that. I actually just was hoping you'd bring it back to the topic to be honest, and I see you doing now. Thank you. I think without rehashing everything that has been said to date, the main points/arguments I'm getting are not everyone defines feminism in the same way, and although there are very well defined schools of thoughts and theories on feminism, second wave feminism and third wave/post-feminism, it has become a term that people appropriate themselves to their own reality. While I have no problem with appropriating terms to define ourselves, the problem I see arising is one of semantics. We end up not having a common vocabulary, a common starting point to which to start from. I think, if I understood correctly, that much of your debate with hopelesslyInvo was a fundamental disagreement on the terms. A lot of this depends on whether you look at the core of what feminism started off wanting to tackle and what it ended up taking on. That is one of the issues that happens when a term such as feminism gets appropriated over and over again from different groups. It's a catch-22 because theories should evolve, but should it be at the cost of the original ideologies of the theory? Shouldn't it branch out and take on another identity? Just questions I'm throwing out there. - LA

LadyAngelika -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/18/2009 10:38:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika You have the right to your opinion. That is what these message boards are for. No matter how passive agressive you are in stating it. What I do no appreciate however is your pointing out of spelling mistakes. Could you explain to me please your rationale for such uncouth behaviour? - LA quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie No. (I don't understand it myself). I think you are a lot smarter than that response. But it isn't up to me to help bring out the best in you. I would just appreciate if you ceased this type of behaviour for the benefit of all those participating on the message boards. It is counter productive and adds nothing to the conversation. - LA

Lucienne -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/18/2009 11:09:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika I think without rehashing everything that has been said to date, the main points/arguments I'm getting are not everyone defines feminism in the same way, and although there are very well defined schools of thoughts and theories on feminism, second wave feminism and third wave/post-feminism, it has become a term that people appropriate themselves to their own reality. While I have no problem with appropriating terms to define ourselves, the problem I see arising is one of semantics. We end up not having a common vocabulary, a common starting point to which to start from. I think, if I understood correctly, that much of your debate with hopelesslyInvo was a fundamental disagreement on the terms. A lot of this depends on whether you look at the core of what feminism started off wanting to tackle and what it ended up taking on. That is one of the issues that happens when a term such as feminism gets appropriated over and over again from different groups. It's a catch-22 because theories should evolve, but should it be at the cost of the original ideologies of the theory? Shouldn't it branch out and take on another identity? Just questions I'm throwing out there. - LA I think the semantic debate was more between Invo and Peon. I also don't think the term "feminist" has been overly appropriated. Kind of the opposite. Peon made some excellent points about how it's a term that has culturally been defined by those who oppose it. I think it's a good basic term from which one should not assume anything more about the person claiming it than that they are in favor of women enjoying rights equal to men. That's the basic goal. Accomplishing it looks like different things to different people. And different people have different ideas of how to go about accomplishing it. But I think it's good to start from the basic point of "do you believe that women should enjoy rights equal to men"? People who agree with that premise can be part of a useful discussion. People who disagree with that premise should be outed and shunned. Because, really, they are assholes. The number of people who can agree with the premise is far larger than the number of people who identify as feminists. Keeping the number of feminists small or pure, or starting a rebranding effort, doesn't really advance the goal. I think sometimes it's helpful to modify the term, with 3rd wave or even post-feminist. But I don't think it's necessary. I want people who agree with the basic goal to inform the conversation. Be part of what feminism is. It's easy enough to smack down someone as not a "true" feminist, and there's plenty of room for agenda pushing, fifth columns, turf wars, etc. Feminists are still human beings. :) But in a general discussion, I think it's nice that the premise be kept simple and the conversation build from there.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/18/2009 11:25:17 AM)
quote: quote: I think the semantic debate was more between Invo and Peon. Noted. quote: I also don't think the term "feminist" has been overly appropriated. . I disagree, but that's ok. quote: Kind of the opposite. Peon made some excellent points about how it's a term that has culturally been defined by those who oppose it. Then explain the centres for Feminist/Women's Studies that exist in just about any Western academic institution. quote: I think it's a good basic term from which one should not assume anything more about the person claiming it than that they are in favor of women enjoying rights equal to men. That's the basic goal. Accomplishing it looks like different things to different people. And different people have different ideas of how to go about accomplishing it. That's exactly what I mean by appropriated by so many that it's lost it's meaning. quote: But I think it's good to start from the basic point of "do you believe that women should enjoy rights equal to men"? People who agree with that premise can be part of a useful discussion. People who disagree with that premise should be outed and shunned. Because, really, they are assholes. Assholes who have the right to their opinion I guess. So by that token, would you agree that female supremacists are assholes too? Just asking. quote: The number of people who can agree with the premise is far larger than the number of people who identify as feminists. Agreed. quote: Keeping the number of feminists small or pure, or starting a rebranding effort, doesn't really advance the goal. I think sometimes it's helpful to modify the term, with 3rd wave or even post-feminist. But I don't think it's necessary. Perhaps. But the reality is that people are still allowed to identify with what they want and those identities tend to be quite precise, they tend to branch out. I don't agree with a lot of the things that Grassroots Feminists agree or the Right Wing Feminists so why would I want to identify with them? quote: I want people who agree with the basic goal to inform the conversation. Be part of what feminism is. It's easy enough to smack down someone as not a "true" feminist, and there's plenty of room for agenda pushing, fifth columns, turf wars, etc. Feminists are still human beings. :) But in a general discussion, I think it's nice that the premise be kept simple and the conversation build from there. Which was the point of this post, to get people to chime in on how much or how little they identify. - LA

hopelesslyInvo -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/18/2009 2:06:24 PM)
quote: I think "how dare you" is a pretty healthy response to someone asking you to respect their belief that you are an abomination... I don't know if you're arguing that gay couples should be fine with that. If so, I think asking someone to be ok with someone else thinking that their loving union is an abomination is "asking too much." ...If you think it's sinful to provide wedding cakes to gay couples, get out of the wedding cake business. i'm trying to explain mindsets, not dialogue exchanges. a simple "no thank you, i wouldn't feel comfortable." doesn't seem to be enough to satisfy, but the news doesn't really run many stories of "gay couple asks christian family for a cake; they sold them 2 for being so awesome". from the last article i posted, it implied that the church itself was making the cakes when people rented their halls and so forth; in which case "being part of the church" is possibly something they can't even do if they're trying to avoid making cakes for gay weddings. it's not like i can't be the one who had the job of filling tiny glasses with grape juice or passing a silver plate around so you can express your faith based on the contents of your wallet. if it's my business/property i feel i should be able to turn any offer down, even the christians, and without any amendments. where's the simple right to say "no thanks" in all of this, to anyone? where's the respect for a person's decisions? but that's more in line with a very different argument of the government increasingly telling business owners what they can, can't and must offer or provide customers. you have to admit "that's" derailing even if you think "this" is on topic, so i'll not be going into it much further. quote: For pete's sake, you've talked about "homo fanatics" and accused me of being naive for failing to recognize the homo agenda to shove their shit in people's faces. Everything you've written has been consistent with that original, you claim exaggerated, statement. You keep saying this isn't your fight, but you've put a lot of time and energy into representing the standard position of restrained revulsion towards homosexuals and justifying exemptions to anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs. it's all coming back to the part of the cards dealt; you've only come at me from the homosexual standpoint since it began. i've not seen any qualms about what i said in regard of "god's words", so i have to suspect you care very little for them and are just as one sided as you think i am. i'm surprised though that as many "bdsm christians" as i know are on here no one has challenged my case about christianity, though i'm fairly certain in accordance to christian rules no one is going to "back me" on any level, since standing up for christian/religious rights is about as rare as things come. i guess that might be gay pride vs christian whatever, but at any rate; it's easy to back "currently popular ideas" and give people hell when they support something "unpopular". there are fanatics in every ordinance and group; there are feminist fanatics that i mention being intolerant of, fanatics are rarely ever tolerated well. i would definitely hold on the line that a lot of homosexuals do shove a lot and try to force acceptance. hell, what are you trying to do now? but you don't hear a lot of other words that seem to "inherently" have the word pride always follow behind it, there's no heterosexual pride at least. i can't say it's wrong or unjustified or even at the very least unsurprising, this has occured in my lifetime (unlike things of the 50's) where i saw "closet" turn into "pride". if you want to wake people up and get them to acknowledge you it's going to take crashing some symbols into some ears. it's at least to the point of getting laws written that people must accept them and must not question, speak ill, or refuse them. their goals require force no matter how "good their intentions", and turning them down on any account without a 2 page apology begging forgiveness is akin to inviting a shitstorm by breaking a hornet nest apart in most cases. they'll often lash, look how you lash. i see a lot of movements, a lot of rallys, and a lot of protests, and whether or not it's because they're filled with "pride" or anything else, as a whole homosexuals are more aggressive in this way than any other movement or cause that i've seen. it's no more enjoyable for people who aren't a part of it than political parades that knock on your door as they go by to hand out flyers of dead fetuses saying "don't vote for johnny rumfield!". a person not in support of them have to tip toe around everything they say or do or they'll often enough get lambasted, and that's ridiculous. look how much i invited it from you merely by stating what i learned from the "good book". look how merely knowing the correct words of the bible meant in your eyes that i hate homosexuals and that i'm a christian lapdog. i wasn't even able to say god doesn't like it without you telling me god loves it. i'm not the one who wrote the bible, and i don't carry it on my shoulder anymore, if people have a problem with gods laws they can take it up with him. saying suddenly "god is openminded and loving of homosexuality" and calling the idea new age "christianity" isn't accomplishing anything though. that's more of the same, giving christians a good reason to get huffy when they watch their beliefs become subject to being rewritten in order for the word "christian" to remain p.c. to oprah and everyone else that thinks we should all just get along. you can't have diversity and have everything get along; getting along perfectly isn't nature, maintaining harmony is. you see the fun things christian fanatics do though i trust? if i googled for 5 minutes i could probably remember the guys name who terrorized people that worked at an abortion clinic (often desk jobs) until they were utterly paranoid for their safety (not from the guy harassing her, but the other citizens in town) and moved as far away as she could get. he'd go so far as to "decorate her house and yard with signs and posters" or shout on megaphones that she killed babies while she was at walmart. picket signs with "god hates fags" "fags burn in hell". if you can't think of them as "good ol boys" i don't see why i'm being unfair to not approve of any other fanatic. quote: You can't unsee them, but you can unlearn them. if you know how to un-memorize scripture, be my guest. i was sort of a free thinker even when i was young, it didn't take much longer than around 7 to question everything told to me from any side. if you think i need to unlearn "anti homosexual / pro christian brainwashing" you're mistaken. i can't tell you how well i know the bible despite being agnostic though. i've read and read, and listened, and learned, and watched, then re-read, then discussed... for some odd 14 years. i really don't know much about most other religions; don't care to, but believe me i know the contents of that book better than little red riding hood, i can't cast that knowledge out any more than anything else. anything i "learned" in your line of thought wasn't learned until i could comprehend it and formulate my own opinions. hearing my dad say "these _____ ni__ers are the most ______ mother _______ dramatic pause they ________ biggest mistake ________" yadda yadda is not learning to be racist, if anything it's the reason i learned not to be. most of what i learned from my father was "this is everything i will never be". quote: And this is what I find interesting about you. You're on a bdsm website. I assume that you are a fan of non-procreative sex. What possible, reason-based, quarrel can you have with homosexuality? you're not catching on... there is no quarrel with being homosexual. you want a reason based quarrel? fine, try this on for size. if women start looking at women the way my eyes see them, they might damn near all become lesbian; considering how hard it is to find someone already, if that happened i'd surely be a very sad lonely panda. though i guess the more men that are homosexual the more it bolsters my chances with those who are straight, so yea... guess i don't have much of an argument after all. and if you take any of that seriously... quote: I disagree that it derails it. I think it nourishes and builds social bonds. then why isn't anyone talking ABOUT feminism anymore? compare page 1 to page 3... yes, it's because we've taken this train off its tracks. if the discussion we're having right now was what you wanted to be discussed in a thread, what title for the thread would you pick? here's a hint, not "are you feminist". i think "christianity and homosexuality" would be far more than an "inkling" more appropriate if this is what we're supposed to be getting into. quote: Why, yes, I can deny that. I'm surprised you would doubt my ability to do so. In terms of our interaction, I'm guessing you have a 2:1 advantage in the "calling the other person stupid" column. But that's not what I'm talking about. You've expressed positions that are very hateful and condemning of homosexuals and homosexuality. I don't see what you think the "full circle" is. how many times did you use the word feminist/ism in that paragraph? how many times did you mention anything to do with women? in fact, you only use the word feminist once in this entire post, the others are much the same as well. if that's what you call "not derailed", what is? you can't just say "equality" for x is dealing with equality for y. they wouldn't have different movements if it was the same thing. none of these things are fighting for freedom for all walks of life everywhere, they'd never get anywhere because it wouldn't be addressing the specific issues each case has. i can't quite see how i'm supposed to recognize your misinterpreting my opinion to be wildly offensive, but not being intentionally insulting to be offensive at all. i'm mostly convinced that while it wasn't the start of the problem, my lack of apology for not being "politically correct" and not holding back my opinion is the reason for your view. where normally i might have thought to say here "i don't give a shit if they like me or think i like them", when it actually happened - as the case with otter, i was quick enough to straighten my views out after having my words twisted around and someone else's words put in my mouth, and otter's case is quite different than the grounds you seem to be standing on. i haven't held hate or spite in my words once except when changing tone of the message to you or peon. and even in otters case the words were something like "i'm not sure". you are pretty much the only one who seems so damn certain that i have an undying grudge towards different orientations, and an undying pledge of loyalty to religion. and you damn sure don't see me doing things like... quote: shorter luci: all religious people especially christians are deluded uncaring dogmatic assholes who don't deserve to have even the most simplest requests honored or the same rights the rest of us are privvy to. religion doesn't need separated from the state, it needs separated from humanity. bake my fucking cake christian! how does shit like that not cause more strife, cause more people to get offended, and cause more people (as we've seen) jumping to the same conclusions you want to leap to? and how am "i" not to see kiddy shit like this as coming full circle in being hateful and showing disregard for someone? and not just to me! in case you haven't noticed, it's at least being disrespectful to people reading the thread, not to mention the person who MADE it to have it derailed and THEN become a mockery. i could jump to conclusions myself, such as that you find religion to be a waste of time and effort to involve, respect, or allow as a right; probably because not having religion in your life leaves you with no understanding of why others have use for it; since you can't see any way, shape, or form how more than just the one damn thing (sanctify) is "sacrosanct" to a christian. i'm not doing that though, that's two ends of a circle i don't intend to meet. you act like you won't be happy until i lash out with unbridled hate for gays and declare it a holy war to purify this land in a crusade "just like we did when we massacred those evil abominations called free thinking women!! i mean witches..." you're kidding yourself if you think that's ever going to be the case. by the way, bonus points for including feminism vs christianity~ quote: Let's say a... cop sees a sleazy looking guy walk into the women's room how many women do you honestly think are victims of sexual crimes in plain view of a cop? are you under the belief there's a cop at every bathroom of colorado or 50 foot stretch of land? i want you to look at something for me. this is my state so bear with me, but i want something seen. http://so.mapmuse.com/re1/map_soin_re1.php?sp_theme=SOIN&pan=&recenterX=&recenterY=&zoomlevel=2111.8285714285716&imgbox=-1+-1+-1+-1&zoomBand=&extent=-86.42544137431+39.577727220118+-85.86993091255+39.935105617183&noOfLayers=1&layer=&layerx=&remove=&imgext=-129.88+22.766+-61.83+51.95&rawminx=117.830193&rawminy=-42.704092&rawmaxx=155.269129&rawmaxy=-8.412631&singlePoint=&stick=&latitude=&longitude=&symbolName=&sp_table=&sp_id=&sp_zoom=&agtid=&setPoint=&setStick=&setLat=&setLong=&setSymbol=&goto=&gotoLoc=&setText=&matchLine1=&matchLine2=&spet=&image_url=tmp2/125857918551261.gif&map_width=20&main_topic=SOIN&machine=so.mapmuse.com&directory=re1&map_name=map_soin_re1&doScr=0&otm=&mp_table=&mp_ids=&demoLat=39.75642&demoLong=-86.14769&lFn=&layer0=SOIN&layer1= you see those dots? go ahead... move around, zoom in or out, roll over and check out those beautiful mug shots. those are the one's that got caught and are back out on the street. how many dots do you think we are unable to see or haven't even been born yet? and THESE dots don't have a law that protects their ability to go inside places designated for women only. it doesn't take a feminist to say "oh, that looks like a very problematic possibility". how are people to feel, not just on their own terms of their lives, but in terms of their 'daughters'? even if you feel you'd be fine with the situation (if you ever were in a situation), you expect everyone to? sexual predators aside, AND the feelings of transsexuals aside, (yeah you read that verbatim) how are women supposed to feel any less put off than transsexuals might have felt uncomfortable that people who were born men or still are at the very least "equipped" as a man have free reign in a female sanctuary? compare the amount of women vs the amount of transsexuals; i don't even have to think who outweighs in other in numbers for that case unlike with predators/transsexuals. now keeping in mind that YOU are not all women, and YOUR compassion/understanding/sympathy or anyone else's on this board towards transsexuals/homosexuals doesn't reflect the majority of women, how are THEY to feel about such a thing? how are fathers? yeah, transsexuals need to go to the bathroom, and yeah, putting a "transsexual bathroom" next to the men's and women's doesn't do anything but make them horribly outcast, segregated, and a target for further negativity. that's not my point. if you want to debate on my on this situation, you need to stop thinking of us sitting in the "i'm a homosexual hating, bible thumpin' christian" and the "i'm a homosexual evangelist" chairs. i'm sitting pretty in my "feminist" chair, posing this predicament which affects women more than it affects anyone else and asking "you don't think there's ANY problem with this law?". i'm not asking if you think transsexuals shouldn't be victims or mistreated, i'm not asking if you think they should be able to use the bathroom or specifically the women's bathroom; i'm not asking if the law didn't address an issue needing addressed, i'm asking can you see no problem FOR WOMEN with this specific law? we may both claim to be feminists, but i assure you that saying "i'm a woman, and i think it's fine" doesn't cut it. you need more reasoning than that or "well if a cop was there", to even come close to achieving some measure of being convincing that "this" form of "forcing", which isn't forcing "christians or wedding cakes" is some form of well executed necessity. and you damn sure need more than "you just don't like it because you hate homosexuals", or "transsexuals gotta pee too", or "you're just hiding behind your homosexual hate and using women as a shield so you can pick at gays further". my point doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with anything i just underlined. i'm sorry to say that not even as a feminist or anything else, i find sexual assualt/rape/exploitation/lewd behavior/abduction to be things that ARE more than an issue, even if security from those things taking a drop isn't something you would bat and eyelash over. what prompts you to downplay something already is an issue and say it's of no concern? just to try and make me feel ridiculous? to say is not a more serious issue? to say it's not a more common occurrence? to imply i have no justification for being concerned? the dumbest thing i could think to hear is "sexual predators aren't any issue", but hearing "so what if men wander in to women's facilities and terrorize the ladies just for kicks" comes close as well. neither of them are acceptable in my book. and no, i'm not talking about the goddamn bible.

PeonForHer -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/18/2009 3:00:27 PM)
That's exactly what I mean by appropriated by so many that it's lost it's meaning. If the word 'feminism' has lost its meaning, why do so many people hate it? Why would people go around hating an idea that has no meaning?

LadyAngelika -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/18/2009 3:09:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer That's exactly what I mean by appropriated by so many that it's lost it's meaning. If the word 'feminism' has lost its meaning, why do so many people hate it? Why would people go around hating an idea that has no meaning? What I mean is that because so many people appropriated the word feminist to mean this or mean that, it actually doesn't mean much anymore. And the reason why some people hate it is that they hate their interpretation of what it is, like the man who contacted me in my original post. - LA

thetammyjo -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/18/2009 4:18:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aidan quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo I'm a Radical Feminist the late 1960s definition even though I wasn't born until 1969. Why? Because that branch said everything changes through two ways: Within yourself and through education. It also was built on the idea that people are people first and that gender is a social construct that limits everyone. I believe 100% in all of that. Personally, a man who said he was a submissive or slave but then made such anti-feminist statements is either showing his ignorance about the social and political movements or he is is really only in any of this for his own pleasure. Neither of those interest me at all. I haven't said it in a while so I think I'm due again: you're one of my favorite posters here Tammy Jo and one of the few reasons I keep coming back to peruse. Don't know how I feel about gender being purely or even mostly a negative, but then I'm not as up-and-up on the philosophy involved here. Anyway, thanks. :) Thank you, aidan. I'm not on here very much in recent months if you may have noticed. Gender limits. Limiting can be negative or positive, often it is both. I'm all about empowering people, yup, even that man (or woman) who kneels at my feet.

LadyDelilahDeb -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/18/2009 6:42:17 PM)
I'm a pre-70s feminist. I watched my 6-foot single-parent mother in 1959 receive mail addressed to her name with a Mr. stuck in front because in 1959, even in Los Angeles, absolutely no one could conceive of a woman being a ballistics engineer. For example. That was about the same time that she was audited by the tax folks because the gov didn't believe a woman was the sole support of two minor children; being foresighted, she had shoeboxes full of grocery receipts, clothing receipts, private school receipts, etc. They shut up. In my turn, it never occurred to me that I couldn't do anything I chose to. I think I was 12 when I fixed my transister radio by experiment with a stripped bobby pin for a 4/40 screwdriver. I was about 14 when my all-female family laid out the patio framing and did the flunky work of getting it poured and scrubbed down to exposed aggregate. I've been primary breadwinner in two different marriages at times. I've wished a zillion times that I could have buttonholed those reactionary old boys in the Illinois state house who stalled the Equal Rights Amendment out of becoming the law of the land. We still need it! Laws on the books that treat husband and wife differently in otherwise identical circumstances when dealing with, say, financial assets—there's a horror that's as bad as the Okie law that auto-marries any non-married opposite-gender pair who register for hotel space as spouses. I'm sure they good ol' boys were on'y tryin' to protect the li'l woman… I never burned a bra, because I recall the costume history of it well enough to know that it freed women from the tyranny of corsetry. (It's a lot different when you can choose when or whether to wear a corset.) But I always abhorred Phyllis Schlafly, even if I didn't think much of Gloria Steinem either. Lady Delilah Deb "I yam what I yam and that's all what I yam…" —Popeye

kittinSol -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/18/2009 6:49:21 PM)
I consider myself a feminist. Women (and especially young women) that reject the term always baffle me. I have benefited hugely from the battles the previous generations of women have fought on my behalf, and I am grateful to them. I look at Congress, however, and I look at the Senate, and I still see a sea of dark suits and ties. On a more trivial level, I look at the fucking "Toys 'R Us" Xmas catalogue and I cringe at the stereotyping that we still inflict upon the children that are born in the XXIst century. There is still a lot of work to be done: I will always be a feminist. Awareness is where it starts.

Ma2at -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/18/2009 7:53:16 PM)
I consider myself a feminist and believe in pay equity, equal rights and self-determination.

Lucienne -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/18/2009 9:35:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: But I think it's good to start from the basic point of "do you believe that women should enjoy rights equal to men"? People who agree with that premise can be part of a useful discussion. People who disagree with that premise should be outed and shunned. Because, really, they are assholes. Assholes who have the right to their opinion I guess. So by that token, would you agree that female supremacists are assholes too? Just asking. Respecting someone's right to their opinion is not the same thing as respecting their opinion. I don't know any female supremacists and am not sure what you mean by that. I'm generally unsympathetic to claims that if women ran the world it would be all puppies and rainbows. I do think there is a meaningful distinction between disagreeing with equal rights and disagreeing that men and women are naturally equal. If you sincerely believe that either gender is naturally superior, then equal rights won't threaten you because the natural superiority will ensure unequal outcomes. I think there are many individuals who have no quarrel with equal rights who assume that resulting unequal outcomes are due to male superiority in some areas (breadwinning) and female superiority in others (parenting). I disagree with the assumption. But I can credit the person for, at the very least, not requiring their assumptions of superiority being encoded into law.

Lucienne -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/18/2009 10:23:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hopelesslyInvo religious stuff I told you I wasn't going to argue theology here and directed you to a source that could educate you on the particulars of the "God does NOT hate fags" argument. Going into such detail about the subject, issuing challenges, all the while accusing me of derailing the thread , is quite odd. quote: how many women do you honestly think are victims of sexual crimes in plain view of a cop? are you under the belief there's a cop at every bathroom of colorado or 50 foot stretch of land? ... how many dots do you think we are unable to see or haven't even been born yet? and THESE dots don't have a law that protects their ability to go inside places designated for women only. it doesn't take a feminist to say "oh, that looks like a very problematic possibility". how are people to feel, not just on their own terms of their lives, but in terms of their 'daughters'? even if you feel you'd be fine with the situation (if you ever were in a situation), you expect everyone to? sexual predators aside, AND the feelings of transsexuals aside, (yeah you read that verbatim) how are women supposed to feel any less put off than transsexuals might have felt uncomfortable that people who were born men or still are at the very least "equipped" as a man have free reign in a female sanctuary? Sanctuary? It's a fucking bathroom. If women feel like a public bathroom is their sanctuary, then the outside world needs a lot of fixing. I just don't buy that the CO law will embolden sexual predators to hang out in the ladies' room. Perhaps you've got some numbers suggesting a contrary conclusion. Not numbers of predators. An increase in the number of sexual assaults in women's rooms since enactment of the law. Even that needs to pass the "correlation does not equal causation" test. But can we at least see some numbers to back up your assumption? Personally, I don't think a well traveled women's room is a good spot for an assault, from the predator's perspective. And if it isn't well traveled or monitored, there's nothing stopping a predator from following a woman into the restroom regardless of what the law says about transgendered people. quote: compare the amount of women vs the amount of transsexuals; i don't even have to think who outweighs in other in numbers for that case unlike with predators/transsexuals. now keeping in mind that YOU are not all women, and YOUR compassion/understanding/sympathy or anyone else's on this board towards transsexuals/homosexuals doesn't reflect the majority of women, how are THEY to feel about such a thing? how are fathers? At a certain point, reality needs to trump "feelings." Where is the evidence that there is this flood of predators eager to exploit this law? All those dots on the map, how many of them involve men jumping women in the ladies' room? From what I know about predators, it strikes me as highly unlikely. And LMAO for including the feelings of fathers. quote: i'm asking can you see no problem FOR WOMEN with this specific law? I already stated that I don't foresee a significant cost TO WOMEN. I also stated that I think that policy makers should weigh the benefits to trans people against the cost to women. Because that's how the law works. We should act to protect the most vulnerable. I think a MTF forced to use the men's room is more vulnerable than a woman forced to share the women's room with an MTF. Earlier, you spoke of "predators/transsexuals." May I suggest that believing in any significant overlap between the two groups is perfectly absurd? quote: i'm sorry to say that not even as a feminist or anything else, i find sexual assualt/rape/exploitation/lewd behavior/abduction to be things that ARE more than an issue, even if security from those things taking a drop isn't something you would bat and eyelash over. what prompts you to downplay something already is an issue and say it's of no concern? just to try and make me feel ridiculous? to say is not a more serious issue? to say it's not a more common occurrence? to imply i have no justification for being concerned? Those slashes cover a lot of territory. As the possessor of a vagina, I suspect I'm far more sensitive to and aware of the vulnerabilities of women than you are. I'm not trying to make you feel ridiculous. I'm trying to make a fair assessment of the threat level. Strange men assaulting women in public restrooms is not what drives the sexual assault numbers. There are practical reasons that predators don't choose that forum. And those practical reasons are barely, if at all, effected by the CO legislation. quote: the dumbest thing i could think to hear is "sexual predators aren't any issue", but hearing "so what if men wander in to women's facilities and terrorize the ladies just for kicks" comes close as well. neither of them are acceptable in my book. and no, i'm not talking about the goddamn bible. Scary hypotheticals do not equal probabilities.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/19/2009 9:32:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne But I think it's good to start from the basic point of "do you believe that women should enjoy rights equal to men"? People who agree with that premise can be part of a useful discussion. People who disagree with that premise should be outed and shunned. Because, really, they are assholes. Assholes who have the right to their opinion I guess. So by that token, would you agree that female supremacists are assholes too? Just asking. Respecting someone's right to their opinion is not the same thing as respecting their opinion. Agreed. I did say that I respected the right to their opinion, no? I don't see where the disagreement is here... quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne I don't know any female supremacists and am not sure what you mean by that. I know of them. I don't know any of them well. I tend hang out with people who are a little less into ranking people based on any criteria. And I actually didn't mean anything by it. I don't really know you and so I was simply asking a question, hence the "Just asking". There really is no need to be on the defensive with me. I don't bait people and I'm never looking for an argument. Only a friendly debate :-) quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne I'm generally unsympathetic to claims that if women ran the world it would be all puppies and rainbows. I do think there is a meaningful distinction between disagreeing with equal rights and disagreeing that men and women are naturally equal. If you sincerely believe that either gender is naturally superior, then equal rights won't threaten you because the natural superiority will ensure unequal outcomes. I think there are many individuals who have no quarrel with equal rights who assume that resulting unequal outcomes are due to male superiority in some areas (breadwinning) and female superiority in others (parenting). I disagree with the assumption. But I can credit the person for, at the very least, not requiring their assumptions of superiority being encoded into law. I actually don't believe equality is possible, for many reasons based on the general differences between the sexes. That doesn't make on gender superior to another, nor does it make the two majority genders superior to any other form of gender identity. I do believe however in equity for all. But I think my equity point fell on deaf ears somewhere in the middle of page 3 somewhere in between all the talk about gay rights and god! :-) - LA

Elisabella -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/19/2009 11:15:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer So, you 'don't believe in women's equality with men, and the right of women to be who they want to be and do what they want to do '? This to me is a gross oversimplification. It overlooks two basic facts - first off that there are organizations and schools of thought other than feminism that believe this, and second off that there are groups of feminists who don't believe this. To illustrate #1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights To illustrate #2: "No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." (Simone de Beauvoir) Also there are two parts to any "ism" - the first is the set of beliefs and goals, and the second is the ideal implementation of those beliefs and goals. One can share the first without sharing the second. If a person does not self-identify as a feminist, despite sharing some of the beliefs of feminism, that person is not a feminist. Think in terms of Protestants and Catholics - at the beginning of the reformation there was no "protestant church" - there were just a bunch of people who believed in God, believed in Jesus and heaven, but did not believe in Catholicism. Would you say those people were still Catholics because they shared some of the same beliefs? If feminism was as simple as the sentence you summed it up in, there wouldn't be different "waves" of feminism or different "feminist schools of thought." And more importantly there wouldn't be self-identified feminists who disagree with your summary. I really don't understand why so often I see posts saying "then you really are a feminist if you share some of the core feminist beliefs" - it seems like an attempt to silence any type of new movement by reducing the world to two camps - feminists and male supremacists.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/20/2009 2:06:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer So, you 'don't believe in women's equality with men, and the right of women to be who they want to be and do what they want to do '? This to me is a gross oversimplification. It overlooks two basic facts - first off that there are organizations and schools of thought other than feminism that believe this, and second off that there are groups of feminists who don't believe this. To illustrate #1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights To illustrate #2: "No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." (Simone de Beauvoir) Also there are two parts to any "ism" - the first is the set of beliefs and goals, and the second is the ideal implementation of those beliefs and goals. One can share the first without sharing the second. If a person does not self-identify as a feminist, despite sharing some of the beliefs of feminism, that person is not a feminist. Think in terms of Protestants and Catholics - at the beginning of the reformation there was no "protestant church" - there were just a bunch of people who believed in God, believed in Jesus and heaven, but did not believe in Catholicism. Would you say those people were still Catholics because they shared some of the same beliefs? If feminism was as simple as the sentence you summed it up in, there wouldn't be different "waves" of feminism or different "feminist schools of thought." And more importantly there wouldn't be self-identified feminists who disagree with your summary. I really don't understand why so often I see posts saying "then you really are a feminist if you share some of the core feminist beliefs" - it seems like an attempt to silence any type of new movement by reducing the world to two camps - feminists and male supremacists. Truly fabulous response. Thank you. You mnaged to express how I feel. - LA

RCdc -> RE: Do you consider yourself a feminist? (11/20/2009 6:31:25 AM)
Greetings Lady Angelika Firstly - welcomer back! It's great to see you gracing the boards again and it has been far too long (well for me it is - am all excited because I know there will be some real thought provoking posts!). I know this is on the Mistress forum, but I would like to respond. No, I am not a feminist...(baffles kittin [;)]). Because frankly, I don't believe in 'equality' just because of sex. I of course believe in equality based on being a human being, but even then, if two people of the same sex can never be equal, then why would I fight for equality when it clearly doesn't exist? I don't believe in equality, but individuality. I believe in human rights and the freedom to 'be', but not because of ones gender or orientation, but because they are a human being. the.dark.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625