Which gender are you?

[tapitsbo]

Who here is pro-conscription or even pro-USA?

FourthBase?

[slomo]

It strikes me that there are (at least) two ways of moving through this world. One is to take a reflexively militant and combative view, seeking to smash the patriarchy and destroy capitalism. Another is to lovingly acquire enough local power to do some actual good in the world.

Now that's some rhetoric.

I hate to tell you this, but the world will always be unjust.

The only thing unjust about the world is what humans choose. It is not the world that is unjust. It is humans that are unjust.

If, by some miracle, you succeed in "destroying capitalism" or "smashing the patriarchy", another unjust system will quickly arise out of its ashes.

I hate to tell you this, but you sound like my father, a reactionary FOX zombie. Invariably our arguments always revolved around the same basic question about human nature. Are we naturally greedy, acquisitive and sociopathic or are those learned traits? He believes the former. I believe the latter. The example I would use was 100 people stranded on an island. If everything is shared equitably then there are enough resources to sustain everyone. A couple of people decide that they want more than their allotment. The other 98 people band together and banish them from the island. His contention is that this process would continue until there are 2 people left and one wants more than half.

If you're counting on the fall of Western civilization due to environmental collapse or global warming, get ready for marauding hordes of muderers and rapists (hint: if you're concerned about Patriarchy now, you're in for a very rough ride when the gangs sweep through your utopian eco-village).

Actually, I will be counting on the patriarchy to man up and defend against the hordes of murderers and rapists. My father, for all his numerous flaws, would not stand by while the weaker among us is raped and murdered. At least not if there was something he could do about it.

A more constructive approach is to realize that this world, this Saṃsāra in which we are forced to incarnate, is fallen by its very nature, and to do what you can to make life better for those in your immediate vicinity. That means, help the younger people you encounter to be better prepared to exist in the present economic system in which we find ourselves, regardless of how unjust that system might seem. That means, be sweeter and kinder to your family members, especially your significant other, while at the same time protecting those under your care (e.g. your children) from being led astray. It means making small but meaningful changes locally, not persisting under the narcissistic illusion that you are going to somehow change the world. The world is what it is, you can only change yourself and maybe influence a few other people.

Fair enough. But what if you were saying that to a ten year old MLK?

I find it pretty amusing that you're going to slam your "father, a reactionary FOX zombie", but count on him to protect you when the going gets rough. Men are scum ... until you need someone to fight for you.

[slomo]

Who here is pro-conscription or even pro-USA?

FourthBase?

I'm anti-conscription, but if it's going to happen, then shouldn't it happen to both sexes? You know, because equality?

[guruilla]

No, if you're saying that the women you've dated have all been non-feminists or anti-feminists, they would believe something on a spectrum between a) thinking that women should not / can not / will not have equal rights as men, and b) thinking that women should be / prefer to be subservient to men. Either revise your statement or not. You're offensive.

Feminism is believing that women should have equal social and political rights as men.

For a women to be an anti-feminist, at least historically, implies that they prefer an older or more conservative social model, one that often played out as subservience. And that's fine, plenty of my religious aunts feel that way and they are people that I love.

The belief that women should have equal social and political rights as men is dependent on a belief that rights are inherently meaningful in and of themselves (i.e., that who we are and what we do has to be condoned by society), and that our identity is primarily socially and politically determined. It's a totalitarian viewpoint that completely denies the existence of an interior being that exists independently of the latest cultural signifiers.

What you are arguing here is that a woman's being can only be experienced by her via social and political rights and via ideological affiliations. In other words, you are arguing that a woman who does not agree with your definition of what a woman should be (i.e., a feminist) is less of a woman, maybe even less than a woman. And you're talking about women you've never met and know nothing about, except that they choose not to self-identify as feminists.

Is there any way for you to see the oppressive nature of your supposedly liberating ideology? Not to mention the disowned shadow which you've cast long and dark on this thread, as you prowl about uncovering the male oppression of women underneath every rock?

More generally, this sort of argumentation suggests that there is no other form of thinking or existing other than ideological. These women I mentioned are not allowed to have instinctive or intuitive responses to their bodies or their environments. If they do not adhere to one already existing ideological program (feminism), they must, ipso facto, belong to the other kind (subservience).

The proof is that Luther didn't ask me for clarifications about these women, because apparently he didn't need to. He is not interested in them as individual beings, only as challenges to the ideological affiliation in which he has heavily invested for a sense of identity. If Luther had asked me, I would have told him that, without being militant or man-hating egomanaics, these were and are the least subservient sorts of women, and that much of my experience (as a mother-bonded male still in the slow & painful process of recovery) was of being subservient to them (and not by their own fault either).

At a purely personal level, Luther seems oblivious to the fact that he just roundly denigrated all the women I have loved, including my wife, using the spiked club of his ideological investment in female emancipation.

[seemslikeadream]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KaWSOlASWc

Holly Woodlawn, inspiration behind Lou Reed's Walk on the Wild Side, dies at 69
Transgender actor and Warhol superstar who rose to fame in the early 1970s has died after battle with brain and liver cancer
Holly Woodlawn
Holly Woodlawn of Andy Warhol’s Factory died on 6 December 2015 in West Hollywood Photograph: Dan Tuffs

Monday 7 December 2015 03.45 EST Last modified on Monday 7 December 2015 11.16 EST

Holly Woodlawn – Warhol superstar, transgender role model and inspiration behind Lou Reed’s Walk on the Wild Side – died on 6 December after battling brain and liver cancer. She was 69.

At 16, Woodlawn, then known as Haroldo Santiago Franceschi Rodriguez Danhakl, left home and hitchhiked to New York, a moment captured in Reed’s 1972 track:

Holly came from Miami FLA/ Hitchhiked her way across the USA/ Plucked her eyebrows on the way/ Shaved her legs and then he was a she …

Following this, the actor rose to fame in the early 1970s and became one of Andy Warhol’s “superstars”. Known for her role opposite Joe Dallesandro in the 1970 film Trash, her acting credits also included 1972’s Women in Revolt, 1998’s Billy’s Hollywood Screen Kiss , as well as various roles in cabaret and theatre.

“I was very happy when I gradually became a Warhol superstar. I felt like Elizabeth Taylor!” Woodlawn told the Guardian in 2007 “Little did I realise that not only would there be no money, but that your star would flicker for two seconds and that was it. But it was worth it, the drugs, the parties, it was fabulous. You live in a hovel, walk up five flights, scraping the rent. And then at night you go to Max’s Kansas City where Mick Jagger and Fellini and everyone’s there in the back room. And when you walked in that room, you were a STAR!”

Dallesandro posted the news of Woodlawn’s death in a note on Facebook:

I arrived to the hospice and went to Holly’s room, #403. I was next to her talking and telling her all the love that was being sent her way from everyone. It was like she knew I was there.

I am sorry to say at 3:06pm Los Angeles time, Holly Woodlawn passed away.

[slomo]

No, if you're saying that the women you've dated have all been non-feminists or anti-feminists, they would believe something on a spectrum between a) thinking that women should not / can not / will not have equal rights as men, and b) thinking that women should be / prefer to be subservient to men. Either revise your statement or not. You're offensive.

Feminism is believing that women should have equal social and political rights as men.

For a women to be an anti-feminist, at least historically, implies that they prefer an older or more conservative social model, one that often played out as subservience. And that's fine, plenty of my religious aunts feel that way and they are people that I love.

The belief that women should have equal social and political rights as men is dependent on a belief that rights are inherently meaningful in and of themselves (i.e., that who we are and what we do has to be condoned by society), and that our identity is primarily socially and politically determined. It's a totalitarian viewpoint that completely denies the existence of an interior being that exists independently of the latest cultural signifiers.

What you are arguing here is that a woman's being can only be experienced by her via social and political rights and via ideological affiliations. In other words, you are arguing that a woman who does not agree with your definition of what a woman should be (i.e., a feminist) is less of a woman, maybe even less than a woman. And you're talking about women you've never met and know nothing about, except that they choose not to self-identify as feminists.

Is there any way for you to see the oppressive nature of your supposedly liberating ideology? Not to mention the disowned shadow which you've cast long and dark on this thread, as you prowl about uncovering the male oppression of women underneath every rock?

More generally, this sort of argumentation suggests that there is no other form of thinking or existing other than ideological. These women I mentioned are not allowed to have instinctive or intuitive responses to their bodies or their environments. If they do not adhere to one already existing ideological program (feminism), they must, ipso facto, belong to the other kind (subservience).

The proof is that Luther didn't ask me for clarifications about these women, because apparently he didn't need to. He is not interested in them as individual beings, only as challenges to the ideological affiliation in which he has heavily invested for a sense of identity. If Luther had asked me, I would have told him that, without being militant or man-hating egomanaics, these were and are the least subservient sorts of women, and that much of my experience (as a mother-bonded male still in the slow & painful process of recovery) was of being subservient to them (and not by their own fault either).

At a purely personal level, Luther seems oblivious to the fact that he just roundly denigrated all the women I have loved, including my wife, using the spiked club of his ideological investment in female emancipation.

This was truly wonderful. Thank you, guruilla.

Regarding subservient female anti-feminist zombies.... ever heard of Karen Straughan? To me, she doesn't look look particularly frail or beaten down.

[Luther Blissett]

You did misunderstand part of what I said and that's my fault for not being as clear in my original pair of questions: being non-feminist is separate from being anti-feminist. To choose to act and be anti-feminist would be to promote inequality. Simply disengaging from public discourse and ideological debate and just living your life is another thing altogether and is not necessarily hurting anyone. I don't begrudge anyone for living an inward life. I feel like anti-feminists have a lot more potential to hurt another person. I have known plenty of both and all in between, like I mentioned some are even family and I love them.

What I am saying is that you might be wrong about their want for inequality - are probably wrong - and are projecting your own desires onto them.

A life of introspection is honorable and good but really this debate exists on a far longer timeline than the "latest cultural signifiers". This is about respect for other people. There have been other times throughout history when humanity has been asked to address this, but now is one of those times. And we are after all a social animal.

[slomo]

You did misunderstand part of what I said and that's my fault for not being as clear in my original pair of questions: being non-feminist is separate from being anti-feminist. To choose to act and be anti-feminist would be to promote inequality. Simply disengaging from public discourse and ideological debate and just living your life is another thing altogether and is not necessarily hurting anyone. I don't begrudge anyone for living an inward life. I feel like anti-feminists have a lot more potential to hurt another person. I have known plenty of both and all in between, like I mentioned some are even family and I love them.

What I am saying is that you might be wrong about their want for inequality - are probably wrong - and are projecting your own desires onto them.

A life of introspection is honorable and good but really this debate exists on a far longer timeline than the "latest cultural signifiers". This is about respect for other people. There have been other times throughout history when humanity has been asked to address this, but now is one of those times. And we are after all a social animal.

Luther, I appreciate the spirit in which you are entering this discourse, i.e. the desire to see a more just world (at least locally), which I hope you see I share. If you have the time to listen to one or two of her lectures, I am curious what you would think of Karen Straughan. She actively calls herself an anti-feminist, although if I saw her walking down the street and knew nothing about her, I might be inclined to assume the opposite based on body language and demeanor. She is highly regarded among left-leaning men's rights advocates. Do you really think she's about inequality? Even if you do not agree with the points she makes, might her very existence suggest to you that anti-feminists are simply people who disagree with your take, rather than misogyny-monsters?

[brainpanhandler]

I find it pretty amusing that you're going to slam your "father, a reactionary FOX zombie", but count on him to protect you when the going gets rough. Men are scum ... until you need someone to fight for you.

I'm glad you got the humor.

In truth I would have to protect my elderly father. And my sister, who is a black belt in tai kwon do, would do a much better job than I could.

My father is not scum. Men are not scum. Human beings are not scum. Dick Cheney is not scum.

The stronger have an obligation to protect the weaker in a world such as we live in, whatever their delusions in other areas. If Rush Limbaugh rescued a woman from a rapist tomorrow I'd have to pat the idiot on the back and then tell him it changes not one iota all the other shit I think he's wrong about.

Long story short:

I had to intercept a man at 4 am that was dragging a woman who was yelling for help at the top of her lungs across the street with a club in my hand. I had just moved into a new apartment and had barely met these people. When a cop car finally arrived we were still in a tense standoff and I had not even noticed the cruiser pull up behind me except for the heat from it's engine on my leg. A single female officer got out of the car. After a brief conversation with the assailant he started attacking the officer. She pulled out a tazer, shot him and began tazing him over and over. He kept advancing on her. She fell when she tripped on the curb going backwards. He jumped on her and I thought, "My god. I'm going to have to rescue her.". Before I could get to them and whack him with the club I had in my hands she got to her feet. He pulled the barbs out, ran around the front of her cruiser that was still running and roared off down the street crashing into a tree a few blocks down. The first thing the female officer did, was radio the situation in, check on the woman, check on me, ask me to stay with the woman and then proceed down the street toward the suspect. Cruisers descended from all over the city. He was still alive. They ended up shooting him 5 or 6 times. They didn't kill him. I believe he's still incarcerated.

1) I felt obligated to do something and did it.

2) I wish there had been two officers in that cruiser.

3) I wish the officer that arrived had been a 250 lb male.

4) I was stunned at how composed the female officer remained through the whole ordeal. We met eyes afterward when I was giving my statement and she was mentally exhausted. Her fellow officers were practically holding her up. We thanked each other with our eyes.

5) I was stunned when the woman that had been attacked sided with her attacker. At least in the sense that she was pleading with the officers not to kill him.

6) I had to ask for my shirt back from the woman a few days later.

[Luther Blissett]

It is my (and that of most of my friends with awareness of these issues) that Straughan, while being clearly someone who wants the world to be a better place, is misinformed about history and contemporary issues. I don't think she's for equality, I think she's about denying agency to people because there are still xyz struggles. It always seems to me like any of her soundbites could be / are pretty easily rebutted which is why I don't understand why she is so often cited.

[slomo]

I find it pretty amusing that you're going to slam your "father, a reactionary FOX zombie", but count on him to protect you when the going gets rough. Men are scum ... until you need someone to fight for you.

I'm glad you got the humor.

In truth I would have to protect my elderly father. And my sister, who is a black belt in tai kwon do, would do a much better job than I could.

My father is not scum. Men are not scum. Human beings are not scum. Dick Cheney is not scum.

The stronger have an obligation to protect the weaker in a world such as we live in, whatever their delusions in other areas. If Rush Limbaugh rescued a woman from a rapist tomorrow I'd have to pat the idiot on the back and then tell him it changes not one iota all the other shit I think he's wrong about.

Long story short:

I had to intercept a man at 4 am that was dragging a woman who was yelling for help at the top of her lungs across the street with a club in my hand. I had just moved into a new apartment and had barely met these people. When a cop car finally arrived we were still in a tense standoff and I had not even noticed the cruiser pull up behind me except for the heat from it's engine on my leg. A single female officer got out of the car. After a brief conversation with the assailant he started attacking the officer. She pulled out a tazer, shot him and began tazing him over and over. He kept advancing on her. She fell when she tripped on the curb going backwards. He jumped on her and I thought, "My god. I'm going to have to rescue her.". Before I could get to them and whack him with the club I had in my hands she got to her feet. He pulled the barbs out, ran around the front of her cruiser that was still running and roared off down the street crashing into a tree a few blocks down. The first thing the female officer did, was radio the situation in, check on the woman, check on me, ask me to stay with the woman and then proceed down the street toward the suspect. Cruisers descended from all over the city. He was still alive. They ended up shooting him 5 or 6 times. They didn't kill him. I believe he's still incarcerated.

1) I felt obligated to do something and did it.

2) I wish there had been two officers in that cruiser.

3) I wish the officer that arrived had been a 250 lb male.

4) I was stunned at how composed the female officer remained through the whole ordeal. We met eyes afterward when I was giving my statement and she was mentally exhausted. Her fellow officers were practically holding her up. We thanked each other with our eyes.

5) I was stunned when the woman that had been attacked sided with her attacker. At least in the sense that she was pleading with the officers not to kill him.

6) I had to ask for my shirt back from the woman a few days later.

Good for you (I mean that, that's not a snarky comment).

The overarching point I am making in this thread and the other is that most men are going to have the same protection instinct you displayed, and displayed by the police officer who has made a career of protecting weaker members of society. (Yes I realize you both are women.) The majority of men are not testosterone-poisoned monsters. The rhetoric of modern feminism has, at its basis, that assumption. Which is why I counter it here and on the other thread.

[tapitsbo]

Now that we're talking about strength and weakness it would be appropriate to go back to slomo's original point (not that I agree with everything he's saying) about state violence and who gets to direct it. Seems like an awful strong "club" to me to beat people with

[brainpanhandler]

(Yes I realize you both are women.)

Ok. So it's time to correct this. The recent idea that I am a woman comes from here:

because most women can't/won't put up with the bullshit that goes on here

Like what? Bullshit that is misogynist? Or just bullshit in general?

I don't think there is any more general bullshit here than elsewhere. Generally speaking, I'd say less. But I'm a woman, so what do I know?

I was being snarky. I have been a member here for almost 9 years and I have identified as a white, heterosexual male at least a few times; usually when confessing all the privileges I enjoy through no virtue of my own making. I was just born this way. I don't expect many members here to have noticed that so I wouldn't be surprised if that was not generally known at all and I am not suggesting you should have known. Nor even that Slad should have known, although I would have suspected she would know before I would expect you would know. Regardless, when slad decided to take me seriously I found I couldn't pass up the opportunity to be seen as a female here and so I did not correct her. I wish I could have continued my impersonation for awhile as an experiment, but I feel it's better to straighten that up.

It's one of the great ironies of my online existence that given the opportunity to be anyone I cannot be anyone but myself.

[slomo]

(Yes I realize you both are women.)

Ok. So it's time to correct this. The recent idea that I am a woman comes from here:

because most women can't/won't put up with the bullshit that goes on here

Like what? Bullshit that is misogynist? Or just bullshit in general?

I don't think there is any more general bullshit here than elsewhere. Generally speaking, I'd say less. But I'm a woman, so what do I know?

I was being snarky. I have been a member here for almost 9 years and I have identified as a white, heterosexual male at least a few times; usually when confessing all the privileges I enjoy through no virtue of my own making. I was just born this way. I don't expect many members here to have noticed that so I wouldn't be surprised if that was not generally known at all and I am not suggesting you should have known. Nor even that Slad should have known, although I would have suspected she would know before I would expect you would know. Regardless, when slad decided to take me seriously I found I couldn't pass up the opportunity to be seen as a female here and so I did not correct her. I wish I could have continued my impersonation for awhile as an experiment, but I feel it's better to straighten that up.

It's one of the great ironies of my online existence that given the opportunity to be anyone I cannot be anyone but myself.

I, for one, applaud your white cis-male heterosexuality. Speaking as a biracial cis-male homosexual.

[coffin_dodger]

I found I couldn't pass up the opportunity to be seen as a female here and so I did not correct her.

oh ha ha. Another little joke on the dimwitted RI folk, eh? Superior feels real good, don't it?