important change to the general posting guidelines (Mar 8)

[Searcher08]

Talking about a 'mole' here or there (which would be expected) is not the same as one of the pivotal figures being in the pay of, and an active agent for the CIA.

First wave feminism began, for the Western world, in the early 19th century. The CIA was founded in 1947.
So,
either feminism is a legitimate grass-roots movement which had moles and assets inserted into it after it was already a powerful collection of organizations or the CIA has time travel technology.[/quote


Sorry, I deeply dislike acting like a JREFer, but whenever I hear "Either X or Y", my thinking alarms tend to go off, especially when Y is ridiculous (*)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma#False_choice

'Moles and assets' to me gives a trivialising flavour of 'reporting back to the Mothership', which was only a small part of what Steinam was up to, as per Namebase.


"Feminism" AFAIK was not recorded as a term in the US until the second decade of the 20th century (1910), so perhaps this time travel technology was in operation.(* or not!)

[Canadian_watcher]

just stick to the facts, man. it doesn't matter how I craft the argument, the facts are the facts.

[23]

Yeah, man.

This here place is called Rigorous Intuition.

Not Rigorous Articulation.

Stick with theme, eh?

[Searcher08]

just stick to the facts, man.
it doesn't matter how I craft the argument, the facts are the facts.

WTF???

First, please don't direct sexist language towards me. So please dont call me 'man' .
Also, you might want to look at where your power relations are being expressed.
Let's move past your game of You being a 'cop' and Me being your 'collar'. Im not.

Second, "It doesn't matter how I craft the argument, the facts are the facts"?

I simply dont know how to properly respond to that. It doesnt exactly send a message of engagement and interested exploration

[Canadian_watcher]

Look, the woman's movement/feminism is important to me.

To it, I owe my legal status as a person. Because of it I can vote, own property, leave a spouse, expect legal protection from assault, control my own biology, attend school, hold a job, run for office, and more. The courageous women and men who called themselves feminists have touched many aspects of the lives of both men and women in their efforts at prison reform, immigration reform and environmental reform. The list doesn't stop there, but for my purposes it will suffice.

When I come on this board and face people who claim that the entire movement was some nefarious plot, it irks me. When I try and steer back towards the facts (like, for instance the fact that the CIA could not possibly have begun the feminist movement as a NWO plot, or for any other reason because the feminist movement is older than the foundation of the CIA by a good 150 years) those facts are ignored.

What I am saying now, and what I have said in the past, are in NO WAY related to my status as a moderator. They are coming from me, the female human being. I take issue with what you've said, and how you've responded to me.

If you want to make this about something other than the woman's movement, I suggest you PM me.

[Seamus OBlimey]

And drive a car.. you're allowed to drive a car.. I don't know why you'd want to but if i was a woman I might..

It's not a plot, just the usual rot..

{insert quirky video here}

[Searcher08]

Look, the woman's movement/feminism is important to me.

I accept that.

To it, I owe my legal status as a person. Because of it I can vote, own property, leave a spouse, expect legal protection from assault, control my own biology, attend school, hold a job, run for office, and more. The courageous women and men who called themselves feminists have touched many aspects of the lives of both men and women in their efforts at prison reform, immigration reform and environmental reform. The list doesn't stop there, but for my purposes it will suffice.

I truly appreciate that this is really important to you. Many of those things I put down to unions. My sis-in-law told me a graphic story of this - she said that virtually every line of the Chicago Buildings Fire Code was a fought for change, that someone somewhere had paid for with their life - and someone else had fought that that death wasnt in vain.

When I come on this board and face people who claim that the entire movement was some nefarious plot, it irks me.

Which people are those?
Certainly not me, and please dont attribute me to saying that.

When I come on this board and face people who claim I say stuff THAT I DIDNT SAY (you can verify that by just looking at my posts BTW), it irks ME!! Please, this is common courtesy, Dont say I said stuff I didnt.

When I try and steer back towards the facts

Which facts are these?

(like, for instance the fact that the CIA could not possibly have begun the feminist movement as a NWO plot,

Who is talking about the CIA beginning the feminist movement as a NWO plot?????!!!!!
Certainly not me, and please dont attribute me to saying that. Why are you again saying I said something I didnt? Does it not bug you putting words in my mouth?

or for any other reason because the feminist movement is older than the foundation of the CIA by a good 150 years)

No, I disagree with those facts. The term feminist, according to Wiki, wasnt in use in the USA till 1910.
You are attempting to retro-fit the term 'feminist' to people born many decades before the word appeared!
That's like saying the 'Social Media revolution' of the 1750's.

those facts are ignored.

No, these 'facts' are DISAGREED WITH.
You stated it doesn't matter how I craft the argument, the facts are the facts.

What I am saying now, and what I have said in the past, are in NO WAY related to my status as a moderator. They are coming from me, the female human being. I take issue with what you've said, and how you've responded to me.

As a man, and also a fighter for gender equality, I take issue (a) with your sexist language towards me - and (b) with you repeatedly putting words in my mouth. You have addressed neither of these points.

My expressed concern was that social movements can be subject to a degree of co-opting by people who REALLY dont have their best interests at heart. They can have organisations and people apparently align with them who have their OWN agendas.
Look at the Tea Baggers as an exquisite example.
Look at the attempted current UK co-option of the Libyan rebels.

This isnt the whole CoIntelpro side of things, this is the Operation Mockingbird arena.
When one of the KEY movers and shakers in Feminism is linked to a person (Cord Meyer) up to his neck in the Kennedy assassination, surely that merits at least a WHOA! REALLY??

If you want to make this about something other than the woman's movement, I suggest you PM me.

[/quote]

Im not making it anything except doing my best to raise awkward questions.
C_W, you are seeing this as being about the women's movement. I am really not. ( FFS my spiritual path is Wiccan! )

My issue has been allowing expression of views that are potentially critical of feminist organisations, people and writing. Not in a Henry Makow style (why does HE have to be brought in!???)

This has arisen in the context of Jeff's new rule, so I prefer to have this exchange out in the open.

I personally find it very uncomfortable (it's where my libertarian left grinds against the centrist Dem / Progressive)
but hey at least I'm inside the tent pissing out, rather than outside pissing in

[Canadian_watcher]

To it, I owe my legal status as a person. Because of it I can vote, own property, leave a spouse, expect legal protection from assault, control my own biology, attend school, hold a job, run for office, and more. The courageous women and men who called themselves feminists have touched many aspects of the lives of both men and women in their efforts at prison reform, immigration reform and environmental reform. The list doesn't stop there, but for my purposes it will suffice.

I truly appreciate that this is really important to you. Many of those things I put down to unions. My sis-in-law told me a graphic story of this - she said that virtually every line of the Chicago Buildings Fire Code was a fought for change, that someone somewhere had paid for with their life - and someone else had fought that that death wasnt in vain.

without putting words in your mouth, it seems like you said that the things I list as being achieved in the name of women's rights by female activists were actually achieved by unions. You don't specify whether these were male unions or not.

When I come on this board and face people who claim I say stuff THAT I DIDNT SAY (you can verify that by just looking at my posts BTW), it irks ME!! Please, this is common courtesy, Dont say I said stuff I didnt.

I didn't do that.

Who is talking about the CIA beginning the feminist movement as a NWO plot?????!!!!!Certainly not me, and please dont attribute me to saying that.

you are strongly implying that here:

Hmm... certain aspects and certain institutions and certain people within the "Feminist" movement are most definitely, as a matter of public record, associated with the CIA - and globalists - and over a long period of time.
"Ms" Steinem, come on down. Documentation produced below.

Oh well,

Conflating Steinem-esque "Feminism" with women's rights and justice is like conflating Zionism and Judaism.
The latter (Women's rights and Judaism) rock's on -
much of the formers ("Ms" and Feminista Orthodoxy and Zionism) are often globalist-friendly (and funded) bollocks and deserve to be called so.

The irony is that the degree of contempt which many globalists / NWO types behave towards women beggar's belief - Aaron Russo's film Freedom to Fascism's description of his conversations with Nick Rockefeller covered this in detail.

or for any other reason because the feminist movement is older than the foundation of the CIA by a good 150 years)

No, I disagree with those facts. The term feminist, according to Wiki, wasnt in use in the USA till 1910.

Wiki is the final arbiter of all truth so I must be incorrect.

You are attempting to retro-fit the term 'feminist' to people born many decades before the word appeared!

I'm not trying to do that, I'm accepting the fact that that's how the term *is* used, all the time, in the study of feminism and even in common parlance. Do you think I created the term "first wave feminism" to refer to the women's movement prior to the mid 20th century?

That's like saying the 'Social Media revolution' of the 1750's.

More like saying the 'social media revolution' of the 1440s to refer to the invention of the printing press, which I suspect could be done by a hip professor if he wanted to catch the attention of his students & immediately clue them in to how significant the printing press was to society.

those facts are ignored.

No, these 'facts' are DISAGREED WITH.

where did you disagree with that fact? All I saw was you accusing me of playing 'cop' and objecting to my proving my point by giving you the choice between time travel and accepting the fact that the CIA started after the women's movement did.

As a man, and also a fighter for gender equality, I take issue (a) with your sexist language towards me - and (b) with you repeatedly putting words in my mouth. You have addressed neither of these points.

so sorry. I'll do that now.

I won't call you "man" anymore since you've shown me that that isn't an appropriate word for you.

May I have your permission, in the spirit of debate, to take from your words their meanings? ie, put together the thoughts you've expressed by combining some of the words in different orders, or using synonyms to avoid being boring?

My expressed concern was that social movements can be subject to a degree of co-opting by people who REALLY dont have their best interests at heart. They can have organisations and people apparently align with them who have their OWN agendas.

You'll get no argument from me on that. But, given that the feminist movement has provided all of the wonderful rights for women that I mentioned earlier, tell me why we should be on the lookout for it having been co-opted..

This has arisen in the context of Jeff's new rule, so I prefer to have this exchange out in the open.

yes, this part of it has. I was referring to you having trouble with me expressing my opinions without believing that I'm treating you as a 'collar' to my 'cop.' I hope you can let that guard down but if not, PM me. We can work it out.

[Searcher08]

I won't call you "man" anymore since you've shown me that that isn't an appropriate word for you.

Thread FAIL

[kool maudit]

a generally cogent explanation of the board rules that places it in a specific political/historical context.

i will avoid those topics on which my views might fall foul of these lines (i am not sure there any, but some of the hypertraditionalist blogs i read and enjoy might be borderline, and my view on the nonexistence of any general, independant-of-a-specific-political-order human "rights" might lead to some borderline places).

[Canadian_watcher]

First, please don't direct sexist language towards me. So please dont call me 'man' .

As a man, and also a fighter for gender equality, I take issue (a) with your sexist language towards me - and (b) with you repeatedly putting words in my mouth. You have addressed neither of these points.

[The Consul]

Does this include self loathing?

"My guiding principle is this: Guilt is never to be doubted." - Franz Kafka

[freemason9]

well slap me sideways, one or more misunderstandings have arisen

[Jeff]

Less hostility towards Canadian_watcher, please. It's not her fault I asked her to become a moderator all of, what, 48 hours ago? The rule change was my initiative, so please permit me to take any grief for it.

[DrVolin]

Wow. Sounds like I have to read that misogyny thread.