Señora Che - about your sig

[perception]

Do you really believe that? That men (and apparently women too) are incapable of seeing wom'y'n as human beings rather than as objects defined by their usefullness?


"I learned that no one is neutral about female bodies. If they aren't sex objects used to sell every conceivable good, they are political objects, causing bitter debate on how to manage their fecundity.And where not sexual or political, they are imbued with society's ideals and fears, turned into Miss Liberties,Virgin Marys, and Wicked Witches. Everyone has an opinion on what to do about female bodies, and sometimes it feels as if the only people who get in trouble for holding such opinions are young womyn themselves."-pg.8, Bare:On womyn, dancing, sex, and power- Elisabeth Eaves.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Much more interstingly, what with the spelling of women? Is it so you don't have to use the word 'men' to spell it?

[canikickit]

That men (and apparently women too) are incapable of seeing wom'y'n as human beings rather than as objects defined by their usefullness

That's a kind of simplistic view of the quote really.
I'm more curious about the other part of her sig.

[perception]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 01:57 PM

That's a kind of simplistic view of the quote really.

if there's a deeper meaning I'm all ears.

[DeadMan]

What's with people so damn touchy with that kind of stuff?

Ok, here's what I know. Women, control EVERYTHING! All guys get so pussy wiped it's not even funny. So you know what, they should really stop crying and *****ing about being seen as sex objects. They are, you know why, cause that's all guys want deep down. We want sex, all the time, so we get pussy wiped.

DeadMan.

PS: I'm super ultra bitter today!

[shyguywannadie]

If anyone actually believes that the they are a fucking idiot, male or female.

[Soul Rebel]

Of course i believe it and i couldnt have said it better, so i used her quote.

Womyn are viewed in this matter. Look around you. Womyn are sexualized, especially as body parts, to sell products. Tell me, what is the point of having a woman draping over a car on a magazine cover? What does this have to do with the car or the magazine? Why do ads need certain womyns body parts (such as legs, lips, or breasts) to sell, say a cologne or perfume? Look at music videos, movies, etc. The list goes on.

Second, womyns bodies are used as a political agenda. Even though they are our bodies, people feel they still have the right to argue over what we should do with them, or what should be prohibited to us. Doctors have died, politicans have lied, womyn have killed themselves and why? Over the politics surrounding womyns bodies and our reproductive freedom.

Third, our language is very representative of how we view womyn. It shows how womyn are viewed and is used as a tool of oppression. We tend to use feminine terms for everything dealing with nature for example, which does cause many problems. It instills the belief that womyn are natural nurturers (which is false, otherwise it would be found universally), that womyn can be controlled, that we can take advantage of them, that the female way is wild and cant control itself, etc. Then we have created these views that are held up for all womyn to meet, without taking into consideration the experience of race, class, sexuality, religion, etc. Although, some may see these things as helpful, they are more hurtful, just like the image of the strong black mother is more hurtful than helpful because it tends to ignore the poverty that these womyn go through.


Im not explaining my writing of womyn anymore. I have explained it about a hundred times here and dont feel i need to keep doing so.

And seriously, if you dont see a deeper meaning in my signature than i dont know what to tell you except that youre blind.

[DeadMan]

Replace the word womyn with men, and you kinda have the same thing. Men all around the world have turned to steroids to get the body that society has chosen. Girls don't want a scronny or fat guy (like me), they want a big, strong man. We too, can be used as sex objects.

Men are also used as objects of trade, prospect and hate in the political agenda. Don't go all out with the women unless you take a long look at the men. We aren't all bad and not all women are good so don't go out on men as if we hurt the world, cause we hurt it about as much as women do. Especially in our times when women are threated better and have better life outcome then men.

Bah.

Wanna piss us guys off? Live longer.

DeadMan.

[Urban Rubble]

It instills the belief that womyn are natural nurturers (which is false, otherwise it would be found universally),

While I do think that you sometimes go over the top with things (like I believe you do by spelling it womyn) I am in basic aggreement with your post, except this part.

Would you please explain to me how you don't believe women are natural nurturers ? I don't think there is anything sexist about recognizing that women are the ones who, throughout time, have raised and "nurtured" their young. I think the simple fact that women are the ones carrying the children shows that they are, at least, more nurturing than men.

[(*]

Well, it is a little stereotypical

[BOZG]

Meh typical feminist bullshit that serves only to divide the sexes even more.

[BuyOurEverything]

Obviously, no generalization in universally true, but the assertation made by Senora Che in her sig is about as close as they come. If you don't believe that women's bodies are objectified and sexualized by most people in society, you are blind. While this can be true for men's bodies too, it is not even close to as common as is it for women's. In our society, women's bodies are a hindrance to them as people, unlike men's. Women are either 'hot,' in which case they are objects, or they are 'ugly,' in which case they are hated and ignored. Obviously there are exceptions, but not nearly as many as alot of us would like to think.

Deadman: I can see you're bitter, and believe me, I can completely relate. I would simply advise you to wait a while until the bitterness fades and than take another objective look at feminism and our society and I assure you that you will understand.

BOZG: Two things. Firstly, it is not feminism but anti-feminist propaganda that causes feminism to divide the sexes. Viewpoints such as that which you have demonstrate simply propogate anti-feminist, and thus anti-female, attitudes. Second, you're working on the assumption that patriarchy hasn't already divided the sexes, which happens to be a false assumption.

edit: I suggest that this thread is moved to politics as it is a serious discussion.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

BOZG: You fuck it up real bad for those of us who are both feminists and Marxist-Leninists. Other than the struggle against capitalism, women's rights should be second to none! What you just said is enough for me to deduce that you're a fucking moron. Can't you see that all of thise shit around us serves only to subdue women... or is that okay with you, you fucking sexist shit?

I agree with you completely, Senora Che.

[perception]

Womyn are viewed in this matter. Look around you. Womyn are sexualized, especially as body parts, to sell products. Tell me, what is the point of having a woman draping over a car on a magazine cover? What does this have to do with the car or the magazine? Why do ads need certain womyns body parts (such as legs, lips, or breasts) to sell, say a cologne or perfume? Look at music videos, movies, etc. The list goes on.

That is what we are fed. That is the opinion that society, in particular the mass media, tries to imprint on us. That does not necessarily mean that is the way we think. You should applaud those who can withstand this psychological barrage rather than laud those who cannot.


Second, womyns bodies are used as a political agenda. Even though they are our bodies, people feel they still have the right to argue over what we should do with them, or what should be prohibited to us. Doctors have died, politicans have lied, womyn have killed themselves and why? Over the politics surrounding womyns bodies and our reproductive freedom.

Americans are notorious for weighing in and taking sides on issues which a) don't involve them, b) are too complex for them to comprehend, or c) both of the above. It has nothing to do with women. It could be the reproductive rights of chimpanzees, Americans are going to take sides and politicians are going to pander to one side or the other for votes, especially if God supposedly has an opinion on the subject.


Third, our language is very representative of how we view womyn. It shows how womyn are viewed and is used as a tool of oppression. We tend to use feminine terms for everything dealing with nature for example, which does cause many problems. It instills the belief that womyn are natural nurturers (which is false, otherwise it would be found universally), that womyn can be controlled, that we can take advantage of them, that the female way is wild and cant control itself, etc. Then we have created these views that are held up for all womyn to meet, without taking into consideration the experience of race, class, sexuality, religion, etc. Although, some may see these things as helpful, they are more hurtful, just like the image of the strong black mother is more hurtful than helpful because it tends to ignore the poverty that these womyn go through.


I agree, but if this is the extent to your oppression you are really hard up for something to complain about. Saudi Arabia, that's oppression. In Nigeria they're stoning women to death for adultery. Back in the 50's, companies were allowed pay women less money to do the same job as a man. That's oppression. You don't like being thought of as a natural 'mother'? Quit fucking crying.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 02:37 AM
I agree, but if this is the extent to your oppression you are really hard up for something to complain about. Saudi Arabia, that's oppression. In Nigeria they're stoning women to death for adultery. Back in the 50's, companies were allowed pay women less money to do the same job as a man. That's oppression. You don't like being thought of as a natural 'mother'? Quit fucking crying.
Youy mention the example from the 50's, can things not go backwards? Especially if the majority in your society, think of woman as having to "stay home and raise the kids", that being their "natural" place in society?

[BuyOurEverything]

Companies still pay women less money. Plus, why does the fact that women are oppressed more in other countries negate the fact that they're oppressed in this one?


That is what we are fed. That is the opinion that society, in particular the mass media, tries to imprint on us.

And you don't think that affects how people think? It goes deeper than that. Sexism is ingrained in our society and how we think.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 03:32 AM
Companies still pay women less money. Plus, why does the fact that women are oppressed more in other countries negate the fact that they're oppressed in this one?
:lol:

True, true people in general are more oppressed in Zimbabwe than the US, that doesn't mean the people in the ghetto's should be happy with what they get!

[Sabocat]

Women's liberation:
What's Marxism got to do with it?
By Naomi Cohen

"The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife, and modern society [i.e., capitalism] is a mass composed of these individual families as its molecules. ... Within the family, he [the husband] is the bourgeois, and the wife represents the proletariat."

These words were not written by a modern-day feminist theoretician regarding the patriarchal structure of the family today. They were written by Frederick Engels in Victorian-era England in the classic Marxist work, "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State."

In addition to condemning the oppres sed status of women in all forms of class societies, Engels' work made a unique contribution to the analysis of the origins of women's oppression. By drawing on anthropological studies of ancient communal societies, Engels showed that matrilineal, classless societies predated the rise of private property. In particular, he drew on the work of Lewis Morgan, author of "Ancient Society," who lived and worked among the Iroquois of the Northeastern United States. In these societies, women occupied positions of great respect and authority.

It was Engels' contention that the patriarchal family, and with it the enslavement of women and children, only came into being when private property developed and society itself was divided into classes--those who ruled versus those who were exploited and oppressed. This was a truly liberating and revolutionary idea. It contained within it the notion that the oppression of women is not an eternal category or a natural condition that condemns half the human race to be forever enslaved.

Since Engels' time, Marxist anthropologists like Eleanor Burke Leacock have added to the body of work showing that the oppression of women began with the devel opment of private property and therefore is not an innate condition of the human species. Thus, the abolition of private property can ultimately change all the oppressive and exploitative social relations that capitalist society has imposed on humanity, including women's oppression, racist ideology, and the oppression of lesbian, gay, bi and trans people, among so many others.

In fact, the first socialist revolution--the Bolshevik revolution of 1917--began by quickly abolishing all the laws that discriminated against women under the Russian czars. In addition, abortion was legalized. Medical care was established as a basic human right with free access for all.

Lenin wrote on the question of the liberation of women after the revolution: "Not a single democratic party in the world, not even the most advanced bourgeois republic, had done in decades so much as a hundredth part of what we did in our very first year in power.

"We actually razed to the ground the infamous laws placing women in a position of inequality, restricting divorce and surrounding it with disgusting formalities, denying recognition to children born out of wedlock, enforcing a search for their fathers, etc., laws numerous survivals of which, to the shame of the bourgeoisie and of capitalism, are to be found in all civilized countries."

However, Lenin continues: "Notwith standing all the liberating laws that have been passed, woman continues to be a domestic slave, because petty housework crushes, strangles, stultifies and degrades her, chains her to the kitchen and to the nursery, and wastes her labor on barbar ously unproductive, petty, nerve-wracking, stultifying and crushing drudgery. The real emancipation of women ... will begin only when a mass struggle is started against this petty domestic economy, or rather when it is transformed on a mass scale into large-scale socialist economy."

The Bolsheviks--among them many lead ing feminists of the time like Clara Zet kin, Alexandra Kollontai and Nadez hda Krupskaya--envisioned creating public child care, laundries and cafeterias, free uni versal education and health care to emancipate women from the burdens of domestic labor and give them the opportunity for equal education and employment.

Lack of material resources and the imperialist powers' unending war against the Soviet Union and all the socialist countries that came later were major factors in undermining these revolutions and cutting short their attempts to change social relations--and the condition of women. In fact, the socialist revolutions were first established in underdeveloped countries where the conditions for establishing socialism were particularly unfavorable. Added to this were the unending military and economic blockades that isolated the new Soviet Union and later Eastern Europe from technological advances that were necessary for laying the basis of socialist development.

Where once women in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries had the rights to employment, free medical care, and maternity leave, today they face massive unemployment, soaring infant mortality rates and loss of almost all their social welfare programs. The desperate condition of women in the former socialist countries is starkly exemplified by the growing slave trade in women from these regions.

Nevertheless, there are important lessons to be learned from what was accomplished in these countries and what is today being accomplished. In Cuba, for example, there is universal, free medical care and child care, and education and employment opportunities for women.

Before the revolution, most Cuban women who worked outside the home were either maids or prostitutes. In the countryside, women did backbreaking agri cultural work with no access to education or medical care, no contraception or abortion.

One of the first projects of the revolution after 1959 was to send young people to the countryside to teach women and men to read and write. This huge literacy campaign raised the entire population's educational level and set the stage for women to go to college and participate in all areas of employment.

In 1960, the Federation of Cuban Women was formed to address women's needs and bring them into social and political life. Over 80 percent of Cuban women belong to this organization, which continues to be an advocate for affirmative action in all areas of Cuban life.

Today Cuban women, living in a poor, blockaded country, enjoy free medical care including contraception and abortion on demand, education through university level, access to universal child care, paid maternity leave and low-cost housing.

This is no accident. Cuba's socialist revolution set itself the task of liberating the population from the grip of capitalist exploitation and the imperialist plunder of its resources.

What's Marxism got to do with women's liberation? Everything.

http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/marxism0429.php

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 04:06 AM
BOZG: You fuck it up real bad for those of us who are both feminists and Marxist-Leninists. Other than the struggle against capitalism, women's rights should be second to none! What you just said is enough for me to deduce that you're a fucking moron. Can't you see that all of thise shit around us serves only to subdue women... or is that okay with you, you fucking sexist shit?

I agree with you completely, Senora Che.
You can not prioritize oppression. Womens rights is as equally important as gay rights or rights for black people.

[perception]

come on, women in America have it better than women in any other country on the planet. You get knocked up, you can gouge a man's paycheck for child support. Your man starts acting up? You can beat his ass with a 2X4 and if he so much as grabs your wrist to stop the beating you can call the cops and he'll spend the night in jail. And if you get tired of him, you can just withold the pussy until he can't stand it any more and cheats on you, then you can divorce him and take half of everything he's got, including his kids. You think that this type of shit flies anywhere else but here?

I am ALL FOR equal rights, equal treatment, and downright equality between men and women. I love women, and treat them like objects I do not. But the more laws and protections you put on the books, the more some triflin ass whores will abuse them.

[redstar2000]

Ok, here's what I know. Women control EVERYTHING! All guys get so pussy whipped it's not even funny.

This is such a stupid statement that it's almost funny...


So you know what, they should really stop crying and *****ing...

Yes, they should be seen but not heard.


PS: I'm super ultra bitter today!

Yeah...must have gotten your brain caught in your zipper.


Would you please explain to me how you don't believe women are natural nurturers?

Many women are; many women aren't. The patriarchal stereotype denies choice. If you (female) are a "lousy" "nurturer", then you must not be "a real woman"...but rather some "unnatural freak".


...typical feminist bullshit that serves only to divide the sexes even more.

More than what?

Do you posit "unity" between masters and slaves as a "desirable" situation?

Or "unity" between bosses and workers?

Then why suggest that there should be some kind of "mystical unity" between men and women under patriarchy?

If memory serves me, even Marx got this one wrong: the original wording of the Communist Manifesto was "workingmen of all countries, unite!"

Not much excuse either; in 1847, there were huge numbers of women and children working in the factories of Manchester and Birmingham, et.al., and Engels (at least) had seen them with his own eyes.

Now, we should know better. Patriarchal attitudes towards women -- sexism -- should be seen as just as obnoxious to the idea of communism as racism.

If Marx and Engels had little excuse, we have none at all.


I agree, but if this is the extent to your oppression you are really hard up for something to complain about.

If this is the extent of your "agreement", then you are really hard up for an opposing argument.

"Quit your *****ing" might have been a more straightforward phrase to express your view.


come on, women in America have it better than women in any other country on the planet. You get knocked up, you can gouge a man's paycheck for child support. Your man starts acting up? You can beat his ass with a 2X4 and if he so much as grabs your wrist to stop the beating you can call the cops and he'll spend the night in jail. And if you get tired of him, you can just withhold the pussy until he can't stand it any more and cheats on you, then you can divorce him and take half of everything he's got, including his kids. You think that this type of shit flies anywhere else but here?

I am ALL FOR equal rights, equal treatment, and downright equality between men and women. I love women, and treat them like objects I do not. But the more laws and protections you put on the books, the more some triflin ass whores will abuse them.

Equal rights for women...except for "triflin ass whores"???

How about equal rights for African-Americans...except for "shiftless, lazy, thieving, violent n*****s"???

Sound better that way?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 03:56 PM
come on, women in America have it better than women in any other country on the planet.

Statistics taken from an American womens group...

Approximately 95% of the victims of domestic violence are women.
(Department of Justice figures)

Every 9 seconds in the United States a woman is assaulted and beaten.

4,000,000 women a year are assaulted by their partners.

In the United States, a woman is more likely to be assaulted, injured, raped, or killed by a male partner than by any other type of assailant.

Every day, 4 women are murdered by boyfriends or husbands.

Prison terms for killing husbands are twice as long as for killing wives.

93% of women who killed their mates had been battered by them. 67% killed them to protect themselves and their children at the moment of murder.

25% of all crime is wife assault.

70% of men who batter their partners either sexually or physically abuse their children.

Domestic violence is the number one cause of emergency room visits by women.

73% of the battered women seeking emergency medical services have already separated from the abuser.

Women are most likely to be killed when attempting to leave the abuser. In fact, they're at a 75% higher risk than those who stay.

The number-one cause of women's injuries is abuse at home. This abuse happens more often than car accidents, mugging, and rape combined.

Up to 37% of all women experience battering. This is an estimated 566,000 women in Minnesota alone.

Battering often occurs during pregnancy. One study found that 37% of pregnant women, across all class, race, and educational lines, were physically abused during pregnancy.

60% of all battered women are beaten while they are pregnant.

34% of the female homicide victims over age 15 are killed by their husbands, ex-husbands, or boyfriends.

2/3 of all marriages will experience domestic violence at least once.

Weapons are used in 30% of domestic violence incidents.

Approximately 1,155,600 adult American women have been victims of one or more forcible rapes by their husbands.

Over 90% of murder-suicides involving couples are perpetrated by the man. 19-26% of male spouse-murderers committed suicide.

When only spouse abuse was considered, divorced or separated men committed 79% of the assaults and husbands committed 21%.

Abusive husbands and lovers harass 74% of employed battered women at work, either in person or over the telephone, causing 20% to lose their jobs.

Physical violence in dating relationships ranges from 20-35%.

It is estimated that between 20% to 52% of high school and college age dating couples have engaged in physical abuse.

More than 50% of child abductions result from domestic violence.

Injuries that battered women receive are at least as serious as injuries suffered in 90% of violent felony crimes.

In 1991, only 17 states kept data on reported domestic violence offenses. These reports were limited to murder, rape, robbery, and serious bodily injury.

More than half of battered women stay with their batterer because they do not feel that they can support themselves and their children alone.

In homes where domestic violence occurs, children are abused at a rate 1,500% higher than the national average.

Up to 64% of hospitalized female psychiatric patients have histories of being physically abused as adults.

50% of the homeless women and children in the U.S. are fleeing abuse.

The amount spent to shelter animals is three times the amount spent to provide emergency shelter to women from domestic abuse situations.

Family violence kills as many women every 5 years as the total number of Americans who died in the Vietnam War.

Domestic Abuse Statistics (http://www.letswrap.com/dvinfo/stats.htm)


You get knocked up, you can gouge a man's paycheck for child support.

Getting "knocked up" is a two way consequence and the man has a responsability to provide child care for the child. The law is that the man should pay half, or to the ratio of income the amount of costs it takes for the child to be taken care of. God forbid that you would want to provide for your child.


You can beat his ass with a 2X4 and if he so much as grabs your wrist to stop the beating you can call the cops and he'll spend the night in jail.

When domestic abuse changes, and it is 95% of men who are victims of it, they will have the same legal protections. These laws are in place because of huge amount of domestic violence. Not because women have it better than men.


And if you get tired of him, you can just withold the pussy until he can't stand it any more and cheats on you, then you can divorce him and take half of everything he's got...

Anyone has the right to with hold sex from anyone. Just because two people are married does not mean that the women is automatically obliged to serve her husbvands sexual desires when ever he sees fit. And if you are in a loving, respectful relationship, then why would you cheat on that person. If a women decides to divorce her husband, and she can do that for what ever reason she desires, has a stake in the home, belongings and property that she has helped establish and accumulate.


including his kids.

So you think the man should have a right to the children, but then complain when he has to pay out half of his wages to support them.


I am ALL FOR equal rights, equal treatment, and downright equality between men and women.

Evidently not.


But the more laws and protections you put on the books, the more some triflin ass whores will abuse them.

How progressive and loving of you. Have you not considered why those laws and protections are in place?

[RedAnarchist]

Looking at those stats Joe, i cannot believe how violent some men can be towards women, especially women who they are supposed to love.

Its a few facts about a worldwide tradegy that affects many families.

[antieverything]

I must admit that I feel some sympathy towards Dead Man and Perception's statements, as misguided as they may be. Often, from the perspective of the young man, it can appear as if women run the world and that many of their problems, they create for themselves. I think that this does have more truth than most of us would care to aknowledge.

It often seems to me that the "PC" has really limited the discourse on gender in academia. Evolutionary psychology isn't even considered. It is somehow sexist to compare human sexual behavior (which, let's be honest, controlls the rest of our behavior) to animal sexual behavior. It is also considered elitist (and not just in the realm of gender) to apply Gramscian concepts of hegemony and ideology!

Yep, I actually just posted to talk about how much of a badass Gramsci is/was!!!

So, let's apply the question so many young men ask (and the question that makes many of us critical of some aspects of feminism): why do women dig assholes so much?

The answers aren't that hard to come up with but they are ignored...

1. Evolutionary Psychology--this is the big one. Assholes are protective and bring in the bacon...what better traits can there be in a mate? This is pretty much how animals that mate operate. The difference with humans is that they can actively change these patterns of behavior--through counterhegemonic actions which I won't go into.

2. Hegemony--it is an issue of culture. Though Gramsci applied his theories to expain the lack of revolutionary fervor in the working class, I think it can be applied to women as well. (Is there such a thing as Gramscian Feminism?) I think that women in our society have a split consciousness due to the contradiction between what they see in their every day experience (oppression and violence) and the socially created ideas of femininity internalized by them through the process of patriarchal/capitalist hegemony. Foucault probably works into this somewhere too but I'm really sleepy and am tired of writing this so disregard everything I've said.

[perception]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 26 2004, 09:38 AM

Domestic Abuse Statistics (http://www.letswrap.com/dvinfo/stats.htm)



Statistics are worthless, especially when they are compiled by advocacy groups. You can make a statistic read however you want, especially if you're not even maintaining a veneer of objectivity.

And that in no way addressed my statement that women in America have it better than women in any other country in the world. Except maybe a few other developed Western states.

And I hate to break it to you: If all men ceased all exploitation of women in media, the workplace, etc. right now, women would continue to use sex appeal to their advantage whenever possible. It's hypocritical and I don't give a fuck what anybody says about it.

I love women and I look em in the eyes as my equal. But feminism has become a haven for dikes who want to be free from societal pressures to shave their armpits.

[AC-Socialist]

Guys, calm down, i was supporting you in the CC, but now im not sure!

[Valkyrie]

I was brought to this thread via the ban thread regarding BOZG.

as a women, (mostly likely the oldest women currently on the board) I feel I have to make a comment on this issue.

I don't think women can blame men for MOST everything that presents an obstacle in their lives or in society. That's scapegoat thinking, and it clearly shows that women DO believe that men control them, have power over them and that only they (men) can change the circumstances of women by granting them their rightful measure of equality and respect. WAITING to feel like we are being treated equally is like letting them throw us some crumbs. By doing that.. WE do hand our power off to men and put ourselves at a very unequal disadvantage. Damsels in distress.

There are some very clear issues where women are discriminated against. And they most definetly are not being honored their human rights in places like the Middle East and parts of Africa and Asia. But.. alot of the oppression women feel in developed countries is moreless psychologically handed down or is on a personal level than a real deepseated universal physical oppression. Oppression stems from having no choices to change a given situation or limited choices without any good options. WE ARE Different biologically. But we are the same species, thus making us equal.

Interestingly, the wage disparities between men and women is most felt at the upper echelons of society at the Management and Corporate levels. Women AND Men at an oppressed economic level make the same sub-standard minimum or entry level wages across the board in most cases. That is a Capitalist issue.

Unfortunetly, woman being sexually objectified in society have for the most part whole-heartedly colloborated in creating that image and the women consumer is also buying into that image just as much as men and with their hard-earned cash. Just check out the statistics for breast implants last year. These surgeries were performed at the risk of the surgery itself and chosen over the future health risks they involve and the fact of it's 100% implant failure rate. Still, woman are choosing them for no other reason than the sexually aesthetic one. :( It is up to women to change this image herself rather than catering to the current whims of men.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 08:00 PM
Statistics are worthless, especially when they are compiled by advocacy groups. You can make a statistic read however you want, especially if you're not even maintaining a veneer of objectivity.

95% of women are victims of domestic abuse
(United States Justice Department)


And that in no way addressed my statement that women in America have it better than women in any other country in the world. Except maybe a few other developed Western states.

Its irrelevant. Oppression is oppression, regardless of how much!


And I hate to break it to you: If all men ceased all exploitation of women in media, the workplace, etc. right now, women would continue to use sex appeal to their advantage whenever possible.

So we should continue with womens oppression then. Just so they dont get one up on you. None of this is founded in any truth. Give me evidence to support what your saying. You may have had some bad experiences with women, buyt that does not mean that every women would want to use their sex appeal to gain things. That's like brandishing all black people theives because a black person stole from you....Unbelievable!!!


It's hypocritical and I don't give a fuck what anybody says about it.

Why would you?


I love women and I look em in the eyes as my equal.

I am sure women everywhere are just that little bit more happy now. Your equel, but only if they dont have any rights...such as child support or rights to not be exploited.


But feminism has become a haven for dikes who want to be free from societal pressures to shave their armpits.

Oh what a wonderful analysis of the womens right movement. All that insight and tolerant wisdom. :angry: You disgust me!

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Apr 26 2004, 06:52 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Apr 26 2004, 06:52 PM)
[email protected] 26 2004, 08:00 PM
Statistics are worthless, especially when they are compiled by advocacy groups. You can make a statistic read however you want, especially if you're not even maintaining a veneer of objectivity.

95% of women are victims of domestic abuse
(United States Justice Department)

[/b]
Define domestic abuse, because I find that statistic highly unlikley, considering that the UK statistics show that "one woman in four has been hit by her partner", 25% is considerably lower than 95%, it would also be nice if you made a link to the source from the US justice department. Perhaps verbal assult is included in the statistic which makes up the 95%, or maybe people from the US are just that much more violant, but I find that unlikley.

My statistic comes from this site:

http://www.alg.gov.uk/doc.asp?doc=6911&cat=1028

[Soul Rebel]

While I do think that you sometimes go over the top with things (like I believe you do by spelling it womyn) I am in basic aggreement with your post, except this part.

Would you please explain to me how you don't believe women are natural nurturers ? I don't think there is anything sexist about recognizing that women are the ones who, throughout time, have raised and "nurtured" their young. I think the simple fact that women are the ones carrying the children shows that they are, at least, more nurturing than men.

Hahaa…..ive never had anyone tell me I was over the top. I find that pretty funny. I would just say passionate about the cause, but its all good.

I don’t believe that womyn are natural nurtures because like I explained- if it was true, it would be a universal trait, meaning that it would be found in womyn of all cultures around the world. Because it is not, I see it as a stereotype that has been used in many ways to keep womyn in their position. Its really all part of the “cult of true womanhood.”

Parenting is a social construction, as is gender. Our society teaches people how to parent, according to their gender, religion, etc. Because it’s a social construction parenting varies from culture to culture. Like if pointed to so many times, one of the best studies to really help demonstrate this is some of Margaret Mead’s work. Her work shows how some tribes in Guinea, I believe, share parenting equally or how the roles are completely reversed (men are the nurturers). Hell, some studies by other anthropologists show how some womyn in some cultures find their children a complete burden and are disgusted by them.

Nurturing is a learned trait, just like acting on violence is learned and enforced by certain things (such as environment, options, etc.) And if womyn do seem more caring or nurturing, its because the gender roles we have been given ask this of us.

Meh typical feminist bullshit that serves only to divide the sexes even more.

I really don’t want to respond to this comment because it shows how ignorant you are. You obviously lack any knowledge of feminism or feminist thought. All you can say is the same bs stereotypes created by the anti-feminist right.

But just to fill you in- the feminist movement has actually been trying to help both sexes, not just one. By doing this, they want to free both sexes of their gender roles, bring them both to an equal level, and basically live in peace.

We aren't all bad and not all women are good so don't go out on men as if we hurt the world

Who the hell said all men were bad? Nobody said that. I don’t understand why everyone gets so damn uppity about it- as if we (feminists) were pointing our fingers directly at you and screaming “NAME, its you goddamn fault we are in this position.” Get the fuck over it. Nobody here reacts that way when talking about racism, so why do it with feminism. Nobody here gets all crazy thinking that they are being called racists when discussing the issue, so whats the difference?

Especially in our times when women are threated better

Tell me how so? How are womyn treated better? In a world of rape, sexual violence, physical violence, unequal pay, verbal terrorism, the threat of taking away reproductive rights, honor killings, etc. how are womyn treated much better?

So what- a man may treat us to dinner, but only waiting for something in return. Doesn’t mean we are treated better.

That is what we are fed. That is the opinion that society, in particular the mass media, tries to imprint on us. That does not necessarily mean that is the way we think. You should applaud those who can withstand this psychological barrage rather than laud those who cannot

We are fed it and often believe it, which is why people feel and think the way that they do. The media does affect the way we think, otherwise we wouldn’t have girls in eating clinics dying to be thin. We wouldn’t have men obsessing over hair loss. It affects the way we think, and we in turn affect the media as well. They are teaching us to want and what to want, and then we accept it and demand it. it’s a cycle that only changes every so often.

And I (or we) do applaud those that challenge it, but it doesn’t mean I still shouldn’t be concerned with society in general who does still believe or follow these things.

Americans are notorious for weighing in and taking sides on issues which a) don't involve them, b) are too complex for them to comprehend, or c) both of the above. It has nothing to do with women. It could be the reproductive rights of chimpanzees, Americans are going to take sides and politicians are going to pander to one side or the other for votes, especially if God supposedly has an opinion on the subject.

Yes, Americans do have that tendency, as do other cultures around the world. However, this is an issue about womyn. It has to do with womyn’s bodies, their reproduction, and their lives. To ignore that it’s a womyn’s issue is to ignore an entire population, its past, its suffering.

I agree, but if this is the extent to your oppression you are really hard up for something to complain about. Saudi Arabia, that's oppression. In Nigeria they're stoning women to death for adultery. Back in the 50's, companies were allowed pay women less money to do the same job as a man. That's oppression. You don't like being thought of as a natural 'mother'? Quit fucking crying.

I was giving you a fucking example so just chill out.

First of all, oppression is oppression. You cannot make one form of oppression more important than another just because you feel like it. Who are you to say what is more oppressive?

Second of all, for every oppressive custom that takes place in a foreign country, the US has a match. Plastic surgery and makeup are the equivalent of the burka. All cover womyn’s faces and deny them of their persona and individuality.

Finally, don’t make any fucking assumptions on my life based on a fucking little post I made. You have no clue who I am or what I want.

Also, seems like the only person here crying is you. Terrified by feminists it seems.

PS.- womyn still get paid less. The difference grows when you start looking at the race of these womyn as well.

come on, women in America have it better than women in any other country on the planet.

Says who? You? How would you know?

You get knocked up, you can gouge a man's paycheck for child support.

Wow, that’s really funny considering that most womyn never see child support, even after the man asked them to have the child.

Why don’t we keep up the stereotype of womyn as money grubbing whores a bit more?

Your man starts acting up? You can beat his ass with a 2X4 and if he so much as grabs your wrist to stop the beating you can call the cops and he'll spend the night in jail.

Victim blaming- always a good solution to a serious problem.

Let me tell you something hun- no matter if you are a man or woman, in a dv case, who ever hit first gets arrested. This is a fact. I work at a domestic violence shelter so I am quite aware of how the law works. If I hit my man, my ass is going to jail.

Second- when a victim gets hit, it is not their fault. Nobody, no matter what they did, deserves to be abused. there is no justification for abuse. If I piss you off because I didn’t hand over my paycheck or I hung out with my sister after being told not to, I don’t deserve to get hit.

Third, men and womyn can be victims, but it happens more in womyn for a variety of reasons.

And if you get tired of him, you can just withold the pussy until he can't stand it any more and cheats on you, then you can divorce him and take half of everything he's got, including his kids. You think that this type of shit flies anywhere else but here?

And who the fuck says a woman does have to give in to sex? For crying out loud, if I don’t want to give it on I don’t have to. There is no fucking contract saying that I have to give my man loving, especially if im irritated with him. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO SEX!!!! So get it through youre head. And if you feel like cheating, that’s your damn decision. Just don’t use not having sex as a reason. If you cant do without it, then break up and move on.

Also, just another fact- many womyn tend to go into poverty after divorce because they get nothing and are taking care of the children and house which payments cannot be made on. But most have their standard of living go down dramatically after divorce. Its men who benefit from divorce.

Next time check your facts before spewing out any kind of shit.

I am ALL FOR equal rights, equal treatment, and downright equality between men and women. I love women, and treat them like objects I do not. But the more laws and protections you put on the books, the more some triflin ass whores will abuse them

Yeah, I can see that <_<

Your last statement shows just how much you really care.

I love women and I look em in the eyes as my equal.

Yeah im sure. In your mind “the fuckable ones” are your equals.

But feminism has become a haven for dikes who want to be free from societal pressures to shave their armpits.

Why don’t we keep stereotyping. As we have all seen, stereotyping is very much a progressive tactic.

I don&#39;t think women can blame men for MOST everything that presents an obstacle in their lives or in society.

Most don’t. Many, if not most, do blame the structure of society, but not men. Those that blame all men directly are those who don’t know what to do with their frustration, have no real knowledge of how institutions work, and typically give feminism a bad name.

personal level than a real deepseated universal physical oppression

The personal is political. If a group of people are sharing the same experience, it is very real and a political issue, not just some psychological thing.

Interestingly, the wage disparities between men and women is most felt at the upper echelons of society at the Management and Corporate levels. Women AND Men at an oppressed economic level make the same sub-standard minimum or entry level wages across the board in most cases. That is a Capitalist issue.

Yes, it is a capitalist issue. But what does capitalism need to sustain itself? It needs oppression- sexism, racism, homophobia, agism, etc. Therefore, it is a sexist and racist issue as well, not just one of economics.

Unfortunetly, woman being sexually objectified in society have for the most part whole-heartedly colloborated in creating that image and the women consumer is also buying into that image just as much as men and with their hard-earned cash. Just check out the statistics for breast implants last year. These surgeries were performed at the risk of the surgery itself and chosen over the future health risks they involve and the fact of it&#39;s 100% implant failure rate. Still, woman are choosing them for no other reason than the sexually aesthetic one. It is up to women to change this image herself rather than catering to the current whims of men.

Like ive said- it all has to do with the way in which womyn are looked at. These views were not just created yesterday. They have been around for centuries and need the help of both men and womyn to eradicate them. If you put the responsibility solely on womyn, nothing will change, because men will continue to think of womyn in this way. Both sides have to make an effort to change this view. However, to do this, all other forms of -isms need to be challenged as well. Nothing will change by attacking each oppression individually as they all work off of each other.

PS TO TAT- the stat is actually that 95% of domestic violence victims are womyn, not that 95% of womyn are dv victims.

[RedCeltic]

Yes, it is a capitalist issue. But what does capitalism need to sustain itself? It needs oppression- sexism, racism, homophobia, agism, etc. Therefore, it is a sexist and racist issue as well, not just one of economics.

This is a very poor agument. Sexism does play a role in supporting capitalism in third world nations, that I would agree. The Export Prossesing zones in Latin America thrive off being able to pay young girls very little and the fact that they are less likely to organize labor unions.

This is however a class issue brought on by transnational corperations and via economic globalization and it affects the men in these areas who no longer are able to find work.

Sexism, racism and agism are all elements that are brought about by capitalism, they are the sympthoms of it. To counter any of these elements from within the capitalist system is like putting a bandage on a gaping wound.

I believe that what she had meant was that fighting for equil pay within the United States would only benifit those in the top paying jobs and not benifit working class women who struggle just as much as any other worker of any sex or color.

[RedCeltic]

oh sorry I meant to ask what you meant by homophobia supporting capitalism when homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered people are at every economic level.

[perception]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 01:48 PM
I was brought to this thread via the ban thread regarding BOZG.

as a women, (mostly likely the oldest women currently on the board) I feel I have to make a comment on this issue.

I don&#39;t think women can blame men for MOST everything that presents an obstacle in their lives or in society. That&#39;s scapegoat thinking, and it clearly shows that women DO believe that men control them, have power over them and that only they (men) can change the circumstances of women by granting them their rightful measure of equality and respect. WAITING to feel like we are being treated equally is like letting them throw us some crumbs. By doing that.. WE do hand our power off to men and put ourselves at a very unequal disadvantage. Damsels in distress.

There are some very clear issues where women are discriminated against. And they most definetly are not being honored their human rights in places like the Middle East and parts of Africa and Asia. But.. alot of the oppression women feel in developed countries is moreless psychologically handed down or is on a personal level than a real deepseated universal physical oppression. Oppression stems from having no choices to change a given situation or limited choices without any good options. WE ARE Different biologically. But we are the same species, thus making us equal.

Interestingly, the wage disparities between men and women is most felt at the upper echelons of society at the Management and Corporate levels. Women AND Men at an oppressed economic level make the same sub-standard minimum or entry level wages across the board in most cases. That is a Capitalist issue.

Unfortunetly, woman being sexually objectified in society have for the most part whole-heartedly colloborated in creating that image and the women consumer is also buying into that image just as much as men and with their hard-earned cash. Just check out the statistics for breast implants last year. These surgeries were performed at the risk of the surgery itself and chosen over the future health risks they involve and the fact of it&#39;s 100% implant failure rate. Still, woman are choosing them for no other reason than the sexually aesthetic one. :( It is up to women to change this image herself rather than catering to the current whims of men.
I agree with this 100%

[perception]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 26 2004, 01:52 PM
Its irrelevant. Oppression is oppression, regardless of how much&#33;


First of all, oppression is oppression. You cannot make one form of oppression more important than another just because you feel like it. Who are you to say what is more oppressive?


^^^

These two quotes are ridiculous. Trademark of reactionary thought - inability to distinguish degrees of right and wrong. So being thought of as a nurturer and sex object is the same as being bought with a dowry and stoned for infidelity? You have to choose your battles. There is no way you are going to end all oppression, and by choosing to fight for one cause (feminism) it is you who are choosing what you think is the most &#39;important&#39; form of oppression.

[perception]

By the way, if you are trying to end the perception of women as sex objects you are going to have to stop men from being perverts, in which case I suggest you start with the castrations.

[redstar2000]

Evolutionary psychology isn&#39;t even considered.

Nor is evolutionary "biology", "socio-biology", racial "science", or astrology. Junk science is of no use in these discussions.


Assholes are protective and bring in the bacon...what better traits can there be in a mate?

In my observation, assholes are abusive and unreliable in "bacon-bringing".


But feminism has become a haven for dykes who want to be free from societal pressures to shave their armpits.

Another brilliant point. Since "armpit shaving" is a North American cultural practice, one would presume that there&#39;d be no feminists in Europe -- women don&#39;t "have" to shave their armpits there.


But..a lot of the oppression women feel in developed countries is more [or] less psychologically handed down or is on a personal level than a real deepseated universal physical oppression. Oppression stems from having no choices to change a given situation or limited choices without any good options.

I find this to be internally inconsistent. Women in developed countries have a different set of bad options than women in undeveloped countries do.

But they are "real" and "physical" nonetheless. To suggest that women in developed countries suffer "psychological" oppression only is, in my opinion, simply wrong.

If you are suffering from physical abuse at the hands of your "partner", it does not matter if you live in Mecca or Minneapolis...the pain feels the same.

If you stay with an unsatisfactory "partner" because you have children and lack any economic resources to support them, you are trapped just as surely, whether you live in Islamabad or Indianapolis.

If you live in a society that defines "woman" in a constricted and inferior fashion (patriarchy), then you are oppressed no matter where you live. The opportunities that should be yours won&#39;t be there.

The official American "image" is that of "equal opportunity for all"...the social reality is far different. I think this is more or less true of all capitalist countries.

I won&#39;t dispute the obvious point that women in Toronto are a good deal better off than women in Teheran...but I don&#39;t think we should kid ourselves that bourgeois "equality under law" has any relevance to bourgeois reality.

All you really have to do is look around you...who are the figures of authority and who are not? Who are the "movers & shakers" and who are the moved and shaken? Who are the real "players" and who gets played?

Finally, it should always be remembered that "feminism" is an extremely diverse movement with many theoretical "schools of thought"...some of which are bourgeois and others of which are, at least potentially, proletarian and revolutionary. A blanket condemnation of feminism "in the name of Marxism" is just foolishness.


There is no way you are going to end all oppression...

Oh? I thought, "naively", that communist revolution was about exactly that.

It sort of makes you wonder? Who will the lucky winners (no longer oppressed) be and who the sad losers (still oppressed)?


By the way, if you are trying to end the perception of women as sex objects, you are going to have to stop men from being perverts, in which case I suggest you start with the castrations.

This is an interesting example of where the anti-feminist position leads: towards a degrading view of both genders.

Women are "whores" and men are "perverts".

How inspiring. :huh:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[El Che]

Finally, it should always be remembered that "feminism" is an extremely diverse movement with many theoretical "schools of thought"...some of which are bourgeois and others of which are, at least potentially, proletarian and revolutionary. A blanket condemnation of feminism "in the name of Marxism" is just foolishness.


Feminism can be Marxist. To condemn Feminism in the name of Marxism is, before anything thing else, ignorance.


Marxist / Materialist Feminism
by Martha E. Gimenez, 1998

It was possible, in the heady days of the Women&#39;s Liberation Movement, to identify four main currents within feminist thought; Liberal (concerned with attaining economic and political equality within the context of capitalism); Radical (focused on men and patriarchy as the main causes of the oppression of women); Socialist (critical of capitalism and Marxism, so much so that avoidance of Marxism&#39;s alleged reductionisms resulted in dual systems theories postulating various forms of interaction between capitalism and patriarchy); and Marxist Feminism (a theoretical position held by relatively few feminists in the U. S. -- myself included -- which sought to develop the potential of Marxist theory to understand the capitalist sources of the oppression of women).

More (http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/mar.html)

[Rastafari]

While I do think that you sometimes go over the top with things (like I believe you do by spelling it womyn) I am in basic aggreement with your post, except this part.

Would you please explain to me how you don&#39;t believe women are natural nurturers ? I don&#39;t think there is anything sexist about recognizing that women are the ones who, throughout time, have raised and "nurtured" their young. I think the simple fact that women are the ones carrying the children shows that they are, at least, more nurturing than men.
Hahaa…..ive never had anyone tell me I was over the top. I find that pretty funny. I would just say passionate about the cause, but its all good.

I don’t believe that womyn are natural nurtures because like I explained- if it was true, it would be a universal trait, meaning that it would be found in womyn of all cultures around the world. Because it is not, I see it as a stereotype that has been used in many ways to keep womyn in their position. Its really all part of the “cult of true womanhood.”

Parenting is a social construction, as is gender. Our society teaches people how to parent, according to their gender, religion, etc. Because it’s a social construction parenting varies from culture to culture. Like if pointed to so many times, one of the best studies to really help demonstrate this is some of Margaret Mead’s work. Her work shows how some tribes in Guinea, I believe, share parenting equally or how the roles are completely reversed (men are the nurturers). Hell, some studies by other anthropologists show how some womyn in some cultures find their children a complete burden and are disgusted by them.

Nurturing is a learned trait, just like acting on violence is learned and enforced by certain things (such as environment, options, etc.) And if womyn do seem more caring or nurturing, its because the gender roles we have been given ask this of us.
Even in reptiles, the instincts for a mother to protect her young can be seen. Crocodilians, besides being the first to have a four-chambered heart, were also among the first vertebrates (or animals in general) to nurture their young and invest more energy in caring for their offspring than in reproducing multiple times. Now, different strategies have been proven and forged by evolution in producing more young to spread their genes, but the idea of nurturing the young has been highly sucessful in higher species. With the exceptions of the noble seahorse and the mighty cichlids, the females became the nature caregivers, as they were obviously restricted in-between breeding and were most conveniant to care for young. In Mammals, this dependancy on the mothers became so important that they developed seperate organs specifically for care-giving (I won&#39;t go into too much detail, here, but we know what I&#39;m talking about). There is clearly no evidence to suggest that men as adequate as women are in ensuring a healthy group grows up to reproduce, and male apes will only interact with the youths in ape societies to gain the mother&#39;s favor.

Don&#39;t let Betty Friedan tell you otherwise (the start of many bad paragraphs, no doubt): Women are natural care-givers and are more adept on the whole at raising children. Where our society takes this and bends it into an instrument of efficient production, without regards to the female&#39;s personal wellbeing, comes in the form of male dominance. In the real world (Nature), the females of nearly all species (and in some remote places in human culture, still) are treated as superior to their male counterparts. In many "civilized" human cultures, however, this has turned into an interesting ruse: womyn are subjugated in order to be protected from the "harsh" reality of what becomes a male-oriented world.

[Urban Rubble]

I don’t believe that womyn are natural nurtures because like I explained- if it was true, it would be a universal trait, meaning that it would be found in womyn of all cultures around the world. Because it is not, I see it as a stereotype that has been used in many ways to keep womyn in their position. Its really all part of the “cult of true womanhood.”

There are no such thing as universal beahvioral traits. I obviously understand that it isn&#39;t every culture that has females as the primary nurturers, and that every woman is not naturally nurturing. However, for the most part, in human society and in nature, women are the primary nurturers in the family unit.


Her work shows how some tribes in Guinea, I believe, share parenting equally or how the roles are completely reversed (men are the nurturers). Hell, some studies by other anthropologists show how some womyn in some cultures find their children a complete burden and are disgusted by them.

Again, I understand that it isn&#39;t an absolute rule, I just believe that women are instinctually nurturing because they are the ones that carry the child, give birth to it and usually take more care of it.


Nurturing is a learned trait, just like acting on violence is learned and enforced by certain things (such as environment, options, etc.) And if womyn do seem more caring or nurturing, its because the gender roles we have been given ask this of us.

Nurturing can be a learned trait, and in many people it can be un-learned or never learned at all. However, as I stated, I believe that when you carry a child inside of you for that long, and then give birth to it, you are going to have more of a attachment, more of a bond and you are going to be more inclined to nurture and protect that child. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s an issue of society or feminism at all, I simply think women are more connected to the child.

[perception]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 08:17 PM

There is no way you are going to end all oppression...

Oh? I thought, "naively", that communist revolution was about exactly that.

if you think communism, especially a communist revolution, is capable of ending all oppression you are naive indeed.

[pandora]

Originally posted by perception+Apr 25 2004, 07:04 PM--> (perception &#064; Apr 25 2004, 07:04 PM)
[email protected] 25 2004, 01:57 PM

That&#39;s a kind of simplistic view of the quote really.

if there&#39;s a deeper meaning I&#39;m all ears. [/b]
Those quotes look very vulvay&#33; :P
There is a deeper meaning, there is a mysticism that lies within a women&#39;s body or wom&#39;yn that i still do not comprehend, it is a lovliness. And as much time as I spent as dancer and watching my friends feed there babies from it, even beyond birth, there is a mysticism within what it means to be a woman that is untouchable.

Sometimes in mythical dance, using various traditions, some of that beauty is unleashed and unhidden, but it is always there as a base of power, that of which human sexuality is only the smallest part. Males do have a mystical sexual power as well, but it is very different more musky, and seldom tapped into.

For both an understanding of life, death, beauty and depth deepens that understanding. But I would say it borders more on Jungs idea of universal mind not just in terms of the brain but to something more primordal, deeper. Like the mountain of the sleeping woman in Mexico, there is something very powerful underneath which is luminated through the body at certain times, but is primordial and spiritual in the same essence. It is a ribbon that flows through all women going back to beginless time, it is what males are seperated from, some understanding of self and gentleness they have lost. It is inexplanable, and often is grounds for jealousy, perhaps it is why women&#39;s power has been subjugated for so long, that with that power they are more powerful than males, so they must be subjugated, like the slave master afraid of the physical power of his slaves.

[Valkyrie]

Well, I lost my post. So, I&#39;ll just say that All these things that are mentioned encompass a Capitalist system. There is oppression everywhere, to most everyone.

[CorporationsRule]

If you are not some sort of feminist, you are no sort of communist.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, sorry, my mistake...(in regards to the statistic).

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 07:11 AM
If you are not some sort of feminist, you are no sort of communist.
I think this is spot on. The problem is, many people believe they are feminists when the aren&#39;t, either because they think they are communists, or just because they say they are, when actually they arent.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 06:00 PM
But feminism has become a haven for dikes who want to be free from societal pressures to shave their armpits.
If you&#39;re gonna peddle such fucking bullshit, at least take the Zapatista image out of your avatar since Marcos would have plenty to say about your moronicity.

This guy needs to quit watching porn channels and get in the real fuckin world.

[Guest1]

Feminism, at least the type I subscribe to, is about abolishing the social constructs used to oppress not only women, but everyone. The traditional family is about more than just the oppression of women, their suffering is everyone&#39;s suffering. The gender roles assigned to women mean unjust societal expectations for all. From homosexuals to children, the social infrastructure needed to oppress women affects everyone.

Yes, even us heterosexual males :P

Anyways, the idea of families needs to be abolished, at least in the current sense of the term. It is based entirely upon Capitalist property. The husband owns the wife, and owns the children. Her honour is his honour, and he must defend his property. His children are his responsibility and he must control his slaves.

Ownership has no place in relationships. The time has come for mutual responsibility and cooperative independance for all involved.

As for perception, go fuck yourself. Feminism isn&#39;t just about that, but if a woman decides she doesn&#39;t want to shave, that&#39;s none of your fucking business. I&#39;ll be there with a couple of feminist friends to kick your face in if you decide it is.

[Valkyrie]

To address what you said RedStar, because you took my comment out of context.
Alas&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

I wasn&#39;t referring to domestic violence, as that is not a deepseated UNIVERSAL oppression as prevalent in developed countries. Sure, ALOt of men use women as punching bags..I&#39;m not denying that. But, It&#39;s not the cultural norm, the accepted practice or the rule of law as it is inflicted to the degree in the Mid-East and elsewhere. I was referring to the deep rooted, all- pervasive psychological baggage about women that they exclusively have to deal with, with no escape because THOSE attitudes ARE the cultural norm of this society. It has the most destructive, disempowering, paralyzing grip because it is complexly psychological in it&#39;s nature and dictates almost everything SHE thinks about herself without her even having to make a conscious decision of it&#39;s validness. She doesn&#39;t need a man to beat the shit out of her everyday because she does it to herself without even thinking by believing those things must be true. And I&#39;m saying she needs to change that running script going on in her head.

[redstar2000]

If you think communism, especially a communist revolution, is capable of ending all oppression you are naive indeed.

Very well, "naive" I&#39;ll be.

But who are the "lucky winners" whose oppression comes to an end?

And who are the "sad losers" who have to stay oppressed even though there&#39;s been a communist revolution?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Valkyrie]

Ha&#33; Welp, there you go Red Star,--- unacknowledging my post. Typical of woman being dismissed in society. Care to comment?... Agree, disagree? Anything?

I&#39;ll answer your question... Woman will be the sad losers in the communist revolution. The laws might change, but the everyday attitudes will remain the
same.

Pro woman&#39;s lib.. as long as they don&#39;t actually get it.

[dopediana]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 01:56 PM
come on, women in America have it better than women in any other country on the planet. You get knocked up, you can gouge a man&#39;s paycheck for child support. Your man starts acting up? You can beat his ass with a 2X4 and if he so much as grabs your wrist to stop the beating you can call the cops and he&#39;ll spend the night in jail. And if you get tired of him, you can just withold the pussy until he can&#39;t stand it any more and cheats on you, then you can divorce him and take half of everything he&#39;s got, including his kids. You think that this type of shit flies anywhere else but here?
i hope you never get any "pussy" for as long as you live. do you think it&#39;s actually fun to take care of a kid 24/7? do you think a payment for childcare makes THAT MUCH of a difference to how well the child is brought up? women generally aren&#39;t the ones to beat up men. men are the ones to beat up women. why? because if we broads get a little bit uppity it&#39;s THEIR SOCIAL DUTY TO PUT US IN LINE&#33; yeah, if we get tired of him we just withhold the pussy....pfffft. is that the only way you could imagine a woman telling her partner that something is wrong? you&#39;ve no capacity for abstract thought. and that&#39;s rather sad.

[antieverything]

Feminism, at least the type I subscribe to, is about abolishing the social constructs used to oppress not only women, but everyone. The traditional family is about more than just the oppression of women, their suffering is everyone&#39;s suffering. The gender roles assigned to women mean unjust societal expectations for all. From homosexuals to children, the social infrastructure needed to oppress women affects everyone.

Yes, even us heterosexual males
My sentiments exactly.

Oh, and Redstar, I don&#39;t think you have any idea what evolutionary psychology is about. It is certainly not junk science.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by AllTomorrowsParties+Apr 27 2004, 03:56 PM--> (AllTomorrowsParties @ Apr 27 2004, 03:56 PM)
[email protected] 26 2004, 01:56 PM
come on, women in America have it better than women in any other country on the planet. You get knocked up, you can gouge a man&#39;s paycheck for child support. Your man starts acting up? You can beat his ass with a 2X4 and if he so much as grabs your wrist to stop the beating you can call the cops and he&#39;ll spend the night in jail. And if you get tired of him, you can just withold the pussy until he can&#39;t stand it any more and cheats on you, then you can divorce him and take half of everything he&#39;s got, including his kids. You think that this type of shit flies anywhere else but here?
i hope you never get any "pussy" for as long as you live. do you think it&#39;s actually fun to take care of a kid 24/7? do you think a payment for childcare makes THAT MUCH of a difference to how well the child is brought up? women generally aren&#39;t the ones to beat up men. men are the ones to beat up women. why? because if we broads get a little bit uppity it&#39;s THEIR SOCIAL DUTY TO PUT US IN LINE&#33; yeah, if we get tired of him we just withhold the pussy....pfffft. is that the only way you could imagine a woman telling her partner that something is wrong? you&#39;ve no capacity for abstract though. and that&#39;s rather sad. [/b]
FAO Diana: marry me in a blasphemous non-religious ceremony. :lol:

[Ziggy]

Never&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Diana&#39;s my woman&#33; (or is it I&#39;m hers? silly dominance issue)

[antieverything]

And what&#39;s with this silly mystical, wondrous femininity crap I keep hearing from douche-bags of both genders. I once thought like that--that&#39;s how I was raised to think. Hell, I used to wish I was born a girl when I was younger. Why is it that women get attributed with all this beautful zest for life while nobody recognizes the cool things about being male? What about the ability to just hang with anyone at any time and not care about social status or stupid power struggles? I&#39;ve never seen women do that&#33; What about the bond formed during athletic competition between the participants of both teams? I&#39;ve never seen women come close to this either&#33;

[dopediana]

amos. take whatever it is out of your asshole. and then go listen to some spice girls.


ziggy, of course i&#39;m your woman. but you&#39;re my *****. remember that.

[antieverything]

done and done...wait, no...I put it back in.

Oh, and I was responding to Pandora&#39;s bizzare sycophantic embrace of spirituality up there somewhere. Sorry, but I don&#39;t take kindly to spirituality in general.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 09:01 PM
amos. take whatever it is out of your asshole. and then go listen to some spice girls.



I concur his comments and perceptions are so idiotic one must wonder how they got this far in life to be able to type into a computer without actually ever speaking in depth to 51% of the world&#39;s population.

I wonder who taught them to read and write, I wonder if that teacher was, :o , a woman&#33;

Perhaps men are frightened by the power of women the same way many white people fear Africans, African Americans, and Afro-European people because they are afraid they are more powerful than they are. As I said before, this fear was paramount in the American South following the end of slavery and in South Africa following the end of aparteid.

It&#39;s okay, you&#39;ll feel better once you come to the table where the rest of us have been having a feast of ideas, no one will exclude you for being white and male, though we might exclude you for being an asshole&#33;

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 08:21 PM
Never&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Diana&#39;s my woman&#33; (or is it I&#39;m hers? silly dominance issue)
Hahaha sorry bro I forgot you were on this thing. It&#39;s cool, Diana ain&#39;t my type anyway...she thinks hoodies and bandanas are "atrocious" and I don&#39;t think she likes hardcore. <_<

[Ziggy]

its cool its all in good fun, right.

[perception]

Well I&#39;m glad I was able to piss all you tight asses off. Touchy, touchy&#33;


Woman will be the sad losers in the communist revolution. The laws might change, but the everyday attitudes will remain the
same.

This is the bottom line. The feminist movement needs to change society from the bottom up, and for the most part it has been working top-down, which results in the problems I&#39;ve been highlighting at the expense of the e-ostracization from the che-lives community.

This has been a healthy lil debate and I&#39;ve learned a bit. Valkyrie&#39;s got her head on straight. AllTomorrowsParties, The Anarchist Tension, and most of the rest of you are TOO damn touchy. But emotion is good, it means you feel strongly about this subject. But I&#39;m sick of all this party-line spewing garbage. If I don&#39;t look at the name of the poster, it&#39;s impossible to tell one from another. Thinking for yourself = good, try it sometime.

<----------Devil&#39;s advocate.

[perception]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 10:56 AM
i hope you never get any "pussy" for as long as you live.
Are you coming on to me? :cool:

[perception]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 27 2004, 03:14 AM
As for perception, go fuck yourself. Feminism isn&#39;t just about that, but if a woman decides she doesn&#39;t want to shave, that&#39;s none of your fucking business. I&#39;ll be there with a couple of feminist friends to kick your face in if you decide it is.
Bring it on chulo. Just tell your hippy friends to shower before we throw down, I don&#39;t want em gettin lice all up on my shit.

[perception]

Originally posted by guerrillaradio+Apr 27 2004, 02:50 AM--> (guerrillaradio @ Apr 27 2004, 02:50 AM)
[email protected] 26 2004, 06:00 PM
But feminism has become a haven for dikes who want to be free from societal pressures to shave their armpits.
If you&#39;re gonna peddle such fucking bullshit, at least take the Zapatista image out of your avatar since Marcos would have plenty to say about your moronicity.

This guy needs to quit watching porn channels and get in the real fuckin world. [/b]
Actually I had a converstion with Marcos and he is the one who first pointed that out to me. He&#39;s very disappointed about the whole thing, as he&#39;s very pro-women&#39;s rights. But he just ain&#39;t feelin this shit.

[perception]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 04:48 PM
I concur his comments and perceptions are so idiotic one must wonder how they got this far in life to be able to type into a computer without actually ever speaking in depth to 51% of the world&#39;s population.

I wonder who taught them to read and write, I wonder if that teacher was, :o , a woman&#33;

After reading your first post I had a suspicion your brain was fried from too much acid use as a youth. Now I think it&#39;s either that or somebody just hit you with the stupid sitck this morning.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by perception+Apr 27 2004, 10:44 PM--> (perception @ Apr 27 2004, 10:44 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 02:50 AM

[email protected] 26 2004, 06:00 PM
But feminism has become a haven for dikes who want to be free from societal pressures to shave their armpits.
If you&#39;re gonna peddle such fucking bullshit, at least take the Zapatista image out of your avatar since Marcos would have plenty to say about your moronicity.

This guy needs to quit watching porn channels and get in the real fuckin world.
Actually I had a converstion with Marcos and he is the one who first pointed that out to me. He&#39;s very disappointed about the whole thing, as he&#39;s very pro-women&#39;s rights. But he just ain&#39;t feelin this shit. [/b]
Wait?? You met Marcos and told him feminists were "dykes"?? Fuck off. I don&#39;t believe it for one second.

[guerrillaradio]

Bottom line is you&#39;re a fucking moron. Playing devil&#39;s advocate?? Whatever dude. Just admit you&#39;re fucking wrong and you&#39;re talking shit. Why are you so scared of women??

Objectifying Diana just makes you look like more of a pig. What a moron.

[Guest1]

He probably got rejected and the girl told him to stop harrassing her cause she was a Lesbian Feminist.

[dopediana]

Originally posted by perception+Apr 27 2004, 10:38 PM--> (perception &#064; Apr 27 2004, 10:38 PM)
[email protected] 27 2004, 10:56 AM
i hope you never get any "pussy" for as long as you live.
Are you coming on to me? :cool: [/b]
first off, don&#39;t EVER objectify me like that again. or else i will come and unskew your perception. and it will hurt. sadly, this tends to be a trend among fucknuts like yourself. you think (probably from watching tv, yeah, you&#39;re suffering from the media syndrome) that when a woman gives you a negative reaction or just plain sasses you or tells you to fuck off that she wants you. you&#39;re kidding yourself, man. people like you end up putting pills into girls&#39; drinks at parties and doing the date rape thing because even the biggest ditzes can see through your egotistical, superior attitude. you don&#39;t know how to make anyone feel good except yourself no matter how hard you try.
or maybe GR is right. maybe you&#39;re scared of me so you have to play the whole sexual power game. power of the sexes is one thing and that&#39;s what i&#39;d like to talk about. but your idea of sexual power is something else entirely. that&#39;s your method of subjugation and i seriously doubt that you get to put it into play all that often. you retreat into your little imaginary world where you are a sex god and the women see you and get so wet they just slide across the floor. hah. not happening, "brah".


Well I&#39;m glad I was able to piss all you tight asses off. Touchy, touchy&#33;
and that is why we take you so seriously.

Woman will be the sad losers in the communist revolution. The laws might change, but the everyday attitudes will remain the same.
well, yeah if you keep thinking like that.


This is the bottom line. The feminist movement needs to change society from the bottom up, and for the most part it has been working top-down, which results in the problems I&#39;ve been highlighting at the expense of the e-ostracization from the che-lives community.
what is bottom up and top down? e-ostracization happens when you act like a big ugly self-absorbed penis.

This has been a healthy lil debate and I&#39;ve learned a bit. Valkyrie&#39;s got her head on straight. AllTomorrowsParties, The Anarchist Tension, and most of the rest of you are TOO damn touchy.
thank you for respecting our well-formed opinions.

But emotion is good, it means you feel strongly about this subject.
but then you proceed to demean us again....

But I&#39;m sick of all this party-line spewing garbage. If I don&#39;t look at the name of the poster, it&#39;s impossible to tell one from another.
yeah. i&#39;m sick of all this party-line spewing garbage too. gee, if i didn&#39;t know who you were i&#39;d think you were a fascist.

Thinking for yourself = good, try it sometime.
your username should be prefaced by "warped"

[perception]

Originally posted by AllTomorrowsParties+Apr 27 2004, 06:16 PM--> (AllTomorrowsParties @ Apr 27 2004, 06:16 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 10:38 PM

[email protected] 27 2004, 10:56 AM
i hope you never get any "pussy" for as long as you live.
Are you coming on to me? :cool:
first off, don&#39;t EVER objectify me like that again. or else i will come and unskew your perception. and it will hurt. sadly, this tends to be a trend among fucknuts like yourself. you think (probably from watching tv, yeah, you&#39;re suffering from the media syndrome) that when a woman gives you a negative reaction or just plain sasses you or tells you to fuck off that she wants you. you&#39;re kidding yourself, man. people like you end up putting pills into girls&#39; drinks at parties and doing the date rape thing because even the biggest ditzes can see through your egotistical, superior attitude. you don&#39;t know how to make anyone feel good except yourself no matter how hard you try.
or maybe GR is right. maybe you&#39;re scared of me so you have to play the whole sexual power game. power of the sexes is one thing and that&#39;s what i&#39;d like to talk about. but your idea of sexual power is something else entirely. that&#39;s your method of subjugation and i seriously doubt that you get to put it into play all that often. you retreat into your little imaginary world where you are a sex god and the women see you and get so wet they just slide across the floor. hah. not happening, "brah".


Well I&#39;m glad I was able to piss all you tight asses off. Touchy, touchy&#33;
and that is why we take you so seriously.

Woman will be the sad losers in the communist revolution. The laws might change, but the everyday attitudes will remain the same.
well, yeah if you keep thinking like that.


This is the bottom line. The feminist movement needs to change society from the bottom up, and for the most part it has been working top-down, which results in the problems I&#39;ve been highlighting at the expense of the e-ostracization from the che-lives community.
what is bottom up and top down? e-ostracization happens when you act like a big ugly self-absorbed penis.

This has been a healthy lil debate and I&#39;ve learned a bit. Valkyrie&#39;s got her head on straight. AllTomorrowsParties, The Anarchist Tension, and most of the rest of you are TOO damn touchy.
thank you for respecting our well-formed opinions.

But emotion is good, it means you feel strongly about this subject.
but then you proceed to demean us again....

But I&#39;m sick of all this party-line spewing garbage. If I don&#39;t look at the name of the poster, it&#39;s impossible to tell one from another.
yeah. i&#39;m sick of all this party-line spewing garbage too. gee, if i didn&#39;t know who you were i&#39;d think you were a fascist.

Thinking for yourself = good, try it sometime.
your username should be prefaced by "warped" [/b]
jesus christ, are you PMSing? :blink:

[perception]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 05:48 PM
Bottom line is you&#39;re a fucking moron. Playing devil&#39;s advocate?? Whatever dude. Just admit you&#39;re fucking wrong and you&#39;re talking shit. Why are you so scared of women??

Objectifying Diana just makes you look like more of a pig. What a moron.
who the hell is Diana, and how can you OBJECTIFY SOMEONE WHO IS NOTHING MORE THAN A FEW LETTERS ON A COMPUTER SCREEN TO YOU?

The Marcos thing was a joke obviously. Like everything else I&#39;ve said for about 8-9 posts, it was tongue in cheek. But the fact you took it as seriously explains a lot.

[perception]

Nobody has given me any substantial counterargument to my only real beef in this thread, which was with Senora Che&#39;s sig and her first reply on page 1: both argue that men are incapable of seeing women as anything other than objects to be used for our own purposes, whether personal or political.

I claim that this is wrong, and all you fucking assclowns who are calling me a pig are proving my case, by yourself denouncing the objectification of women. So like it or not Guerrilla Radio and Che y Marijuana, you are on my side on this issue. Welcome to the team. ;)

[dopediana]

jesus christ, are you PMSing?

that&#39;s all you could manage? stereotyping. ah... i&#39;m just an uppity broad with a bleeding **** and that is why i am so rowdy. yep.

you know you&#39;re doing the exact same thing as i am. we&#39;re both enjoying ourselves to the extreme by being scathing and vicious. the difference is that i&#39;m so much better at it than you. not to mention i&#39;m right and you&#39;re wrong.

i am diana. prefaced by "goddess" as far as you are concerned.

and you never made an argument to begin with. you&#39;re a joke.

[perception]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 11:15 AM
Do you really believe that? That men (and apparently women too) are incapable of seeing wom&#39;y&#39;n as human beings rather than as objects defined by their usefullness?


"I learned that no one is neutral about female bodies. If they aren&#39;t sex objects used to sell every conceivable good, they are political objects, causing bitter debate on how to manage their fecundity.And where not sexual or political, they are imbued with society&#39;s ideals and fears, turned into Miss Liberties,Virgin Marys, and Wicked Witches. Everyone has an opinion on what to do about female bodies, and sometimes it feels as if the only people who get in trouble for holding such opinions are young womyn themselves."-pg.8, Bare:On womyn, dancing, sex, and power- Elisabeth Eaves.

I guess it was more of a question with an implied disagreeance.

[antieverything]

I concur his comments and perceptions are so idiotic one must wonder how they got this far in life to be able to type into a computer without actually ever speaking in depth to 51% of the world&#39;s population.
Oh, please...I&#39;m not the one talking about "mystical dance" and "primordial and spiritual" essence. What the fuck is that shit? I stand by my statements. I&#39;m sick of nobody pointing out the stupidity of this idea of a wondrous, mystical essence of women that makes them so superior to boorish, unspiritual men. It is bullshit and it is ridiculous that anyone can get away with such foolishness. Besides, your writing is simply awful anyway&#33;

[dark fairy]

umm whoa&#33;&#33;??&#33;?&#33;?&#33; :o

[DaCuBaN]

Other than the struggle against capitalism, women&#39;s rights should be second to none&#33;

I couldn&#39;t disagree more vehemontly&#33; we need to stop looking at it as being two different sexes and see it as one race. The bigger problem is persuading people that the only difference between us is gender, not sex (check your dictionary meanings there folks).

and PLEASE stop this womyn stuff.... it&#39;s HUMAN, WOMAN and the one that&#39;s wrong is MAN

HEMAN perhaps?


I learned that no one is neutral about female bodies. If they aren&#39;t sex objects used to sell every conceivable good, they are political objects, causing bitter debate on how to manage their fecundity.And where not sexual or political, they are imbued with society&#39;s ideals and fears, turned into Miss Liberties,Virgin Marys, and Wicked Witches. Everyone has an opinion on what to do about female bodies

Again, this is a problem with our society - advertising is a dreadful example to use as it exploits absolutely everything it possibly can to sell you the product. As for politics? well it can be incredibly unscrupulous and again it is not just women being exploited there. The only one that carries any real weight in my eyes is the idea that women are attributed with the ideals of society, and the comparisons between women and the earth - these are carried from a male dominant society, and simply have no place in these times. It&#39;s simply a battle against the dinosaurs to allow us to defeat that.

[antieverything]

To be completely honest, this discussion has gotten pretty crazy and it is hard to know what is going on now. So, I&#39;ll repeat something I&#39;ve said a dozen times before on various topics.

The Left seriously needs to stop shrinking from the challenge of criticizing the behaviors of oppressed groups be they women, minorities, or the working class. Too often it is held as unquestionable truth that all oppressed people are noble, willful people who constantly form brilliant and admirable resistance to their oppression. While this is true in some ways, in other ways it is a dangerous misconception. As Burawoy pointed out, factory workers usually engage in "games" that reinforce the rules of the capitalist workplace on the shopfloor rather than engage in resistant action. Marx touched on this when he wrote about the development of the "class for itself"--it would take a devestating string of events to shift the working class&#39;s attention from its short-term interests of reforming capitalism to the long-term interests of abolishing it. Gramsci brilliantly wrote about the lack of a revolutionary working class and the failure of European revolutions during his imprisonment under Italian Fascism: oppressed people often find it easier to accept the cultural hegemony of dominant groups even while their life experience runs opposed to the prevailing ideology.

I think that this goes for women in the West today as well. Instead of blindly railing against male dominance, women need to form an understanding of the way working within the foundations of gender in our society often serves to strengthen structures of power even while it is under attack. Women and all oppressed groups must analyze and deconstruct their own behaviors and actions in order to reconstruct them in a counterhegemonic fashion.

The problem isnt&#39; that women&#39;s movements are too radical, it is that their radicalism is misdirected.

[Guest1]

Fucking hell, you people piss me off.

Think of what you&#39;re saying, please.

All of you.

Think of how this is going to end.

Very badly, either with several men restricted or several women rightly pissed off leaving this site.

Fucking shut your mouths, all of you.

[Individual]

Hey look&#33;

Perception has probably snagged the record for the most posts in a row&#33;

That&#39;s almost the same as posts counting in Chit-Chat.

[DaCuBaN]

:o I say something wrong? I thought I was being quite reasonable.... :unsure:

[antieverything]

Oh forget it, CheyMari is right...there is simply too much shit going on and too many heated personal feuds for this thread to go anywhere. Talks about feminist theory tend to get a little crazy, especially when you are dealing with a) those who refuse to criticize flawed premises of progressive movements b) people who start things off with inflamatory, anectotal rants c) young men who&#39;s entire life revolves around being sexually powerless in relation to women and d) folks who post ridiculous and bombastic theoretical statements that add very little to the discussion.

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 03:05 AM

Other than the struggle against capitalism, women&#39;s rights should be second to none&#33;

I couldn&#39;t disagree more vehemontly&#33; we need to stop looking at it as being two different sexes and see it as one race. The bigger problem is persuading people that the only difference between us is gender, not sex (check your dictionary meanings there folks).

and PLEASE stop this womyn stuff.... it&#39;s HUMAN, WOMAN and the one that&#39;s wrong is MAN

HEMAN perhaps?


I learned that no one is neutral about female bodies. If they aren&#39;t sex objects used to sell every conceivable good, they are political objects, causing bitter debate on how to manage their fecundity.And where not sexual or political, they are imbued with society&#39;s ideals and fears, turned into Miss Liberties,Virgin Marys, and Wicked Witches. Everyone has an opinion on what to do about female bodies

Again, this is a problem with our society - advertising is a dreadful example to use as it exploits absolutely everything it possibly can to sell you the product. As for politics? well it can be incredibly unscrupulous and again it is not just women being exploited there. The only one that carries any real weight in my eyes is the idea that women are attributed with the ideals of society, and the comparisons between women and the earth - these are carried from a male dominant society, and simply have no place in these times. It&#39;s simply a battle against the dinosaurs to allow us to defeat that.
Sorry... I&#39;m worried now... I don&#39;t want to be pissing people off :(

Is there a problem with this post in specific? I noticed a lot of the posts were getting quite....personal.... but I thought that comment might actually have been worth putting down :unsure:

[antieverything]

Don&#39;t worry about your posts...many of us had made fools of ourselves before you posted.

[perception]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 10:20 PM
Oh forget it, CheyMari is right...there is simply too much shit going on and too many heated personal feuds for this thread to go anywhere. Talks about feminist theory tend to get a little crazy, especially when you are dealing with a) those who refuse to criticize flawed premises of progressive movements b) people who start things off with inflamatory, anectotal rants c) young men who&#39;s entire life revolves around being sexually powerless in relation to women and d) folks who post ridiculous and bombastic theoretical statements that add very little to the discussion.
e) folks who post not-so-subtle personal jabs and act surprised when the thread turns personal.

I didn&#39;t start the personal attacks until there were about 19 of them against myself. I started this thread in &#39;chit chat&#39;, its content pretty much guaranteed it wouldn&#39;t be a serious discussion about feminist theory. But who cares? Why be serious about everything? This is the internet, nothing wrong with shooting the shit every now and then. Lighten up.

Honestly, I&#39;d like to know how many people referred me to the moderator though. Just out of curiosity.

[DaCuBaN]

well I&#39;m innocent - I get worried when people &#39;grass&#39; others up :D


nothing wrong with shooting the shit every now and then. Lighten up

it&#39;s that damned OI forum&#33; you get yourself all worked up on the defensive and come back and rant at a comrade <_< :rolleyes:

[Valkyrie]

Yes&#33; I agree anti-everything&#33; Hee&#33; I&#39;ve been trying to say that very unsuccessfully. In regards to women&#39;s issues, and this is not directed at Senora Che or any of her posts or even directed at feminism for that matter, because they certainly don&#39;t have a monopoly on womans issues, but all women I am speaking of here, myself included... Instead of the running script of victimization.."This has befallen us.. We are powerless. We are oppressed." however true that is... don&#39;t succumb to that way of thinking, immobolized, unable to move forward. It&#39;s called Negative Action in activist theory; where one can only state the historical outline and causes without offering up any solutions. It absolutely has no constructive import whatsoever Nothing I can think of is more disenfranchizing and negating than women taking ourselves out of the equation by refusing any responsibility or control over the situation but rather feeling at the behest of an invisible multi-headed monster which calls the all the shots. I am tired of women feeling pissed upon. They are pissing on themselves with their own mindset and bringing us all down as women.

So, What can women do? They can take that initial small step of stopping that duly oppressive mindset of feeling prisoner and alien in a man&#39;s world that they believe they are only secondary to.

My opinions on this issue and how women sabotage themselves could go on for volumes... So i&#39;ll stop here.

Hope I didn&#39;t offend anyone. NOt my intent either.

[Valkyrie]

Anti-Everything.. I agree with t your premise that people shrink away from criticitizing and challenging theoretical and tactical errors in progressive movements.

I would appreciate to hear your thoughts and ideas on the women&#39;s movement and strategical rights and wrongs, if you feel you are able to freely speak on this without getting castigated.

Thanks.

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 04:56 AM
Instead of the running script of victimization.."This has befallen us.. We are powerless. We are oppressed." however true that is... don&#39;t succumb to that way of thinking, immobolized, unable to move forward. It&#39;s called Negative Action in activist theory; where one can only state the historical outline and causes without offering up any solutions. It absolutely has no constructive import whatsoever Nothing I can think of is more disenfranchizing and negating than women taking ourselves out of the equation by refusing any responsibility or control over the situation but rather feeling at the behest of an invisible multi-headed monster which calls the all the shots. I am tired of women feeling pissed upon. They are pissing on themselves with their own mindset and bringing us all down as women.

So, What can women do? They can take that initial small step of stopping that duly oppressive mindset of feeling prisoner and alien in a man&#39;s world that they believe they are only secondary to.
I thought that was SO true, it deserved being posted twice :D

[Individual]

I can&#39;t believe nobody has taken Valkyrie&#39;s thoughts more seriously through all of this.

Guess you are a sexist Valkyrie. ;)

[Valkyrie]

Yes, this is a very hot subject that has inflamed most everyone here. But it&#39;s one of those issues that need to be fought to the end -- although not among ourselves&#33;&#33; :huh: But, it&#39;s good it&#39;s been brought up to the forefront.

[El Che]

Valkyrie:


My opinions on this issue and how women sabotage themselves could go on for volumes...

I understand what you mean when you say women sabotage themselves but the question I would raise is why does this happen? Surely there is some reason behind this phenomenon? My answer to the riddle is this: What supperficially appears to be a self imposed degrading, devaluating mindset is infact, to a very large extent, socially imposed.

I can understand your appeal for women to "mentally liberate" themselves but this appeal, if it is not accompanied by an understanding of the root causes of oppression, has to remain idealist and ultimately ineffective. For example, you can&#39;t expect a working class woman with little education to be able to reach the same self valuing midset that a more priviledged woman with university education takes for granted. These things are not dependant on will alone. When making appeals for changes in consciousness, i.e trying to enact changes in consciousness by acting directly on it, we must keep in mind that this has to be complemented by acting on the root causes of oppression.

[Guest1]

Thank you valkyrie for turning this debate towards a reasoned direction.

I&#39;ll have to agree with you that there is a defeatist attitude within the movement, that was my problem with the "Radical Feminists". I find, however, that that defeatism isn&#39;t as rampant amongst Marxist Feminists, though I could be wrong.

It is not unreasonable, el che, to assume that the self-degradation comes from socialization. Afterall, companeras are told from the beginning of their lives they won&#39;t be anything, and should be a barbie doll instead.

The psychological warfare involved in institutionalized sexism is pretty disgusting.

[redstar2000]

I was referring to the deep rooted, all-pervasive psychological baggage about women that they exclusively have to deal with, with no escape because THOSE attitudes ARE the cultural norm of this society. It has the most destructive, disempowering, paralyzing grip because it is complexly psychological in its nature and dictates almost everything SHE thinks about herself without her even having to make a conscious decision of its validness. She doesn&#39;t need a man to beat the shit out of her every day because she does it to herself without even thinking by believing those things must be true. And I&#39;m saying she needs to change that running script going on in her head.

I agree that many (perhaps most?) women have such a script running in their heads; in fact, everyone who doesn&#39;t have significant wealth and power in class society has a version of that script -- "the reason that I&#39;m dogdirt is that I really am inferior -- the bad things that happen to me are ultimately my fault&#33;".

Nevertheless, psychological "scripts" don&#39;t "fall out of the sky"...they have a real material basis or they just wither away.

In order to "blame yourself" for "bad things" there must first be actual bad things that really happen to you.

Bad things really happen to women -- especially working class women and women of color...in every country.

Nothing is "just psychological".


Ha&#33; Welp, there you go Red Star,--- unacknowledging my post. Typical of woman being dismissed in society. Care to comment?... Agree, disagree? Anything?

My sincere apologies. I am in the midst of moving my website to a new host and it is much more work than I anticipated...thus the delay in my response.


I&#39;ll answer your question...Women will be the sad losers in the communist revolution. The laws might change, but the everyday attitudes will remain the
same.

Well, that&#39;s not an acceptable outcome...at least to me. Any "communist" revolution that does not tear down "all the old shit" is, in my opinion, a waste of time.

Here&#39;s a few words from the old buzzard himself...


Incidentally, the ladies cannot complain about the ‘International’, since it has appointed a lady, Madame Law, as a member of the General Council. Joking aside, very great progress was demonstrated at the last congress of the American ‘Labor Union’, inter alia, by the fact that it treated the women workers with full parity; by contrast, the English, and to an even greater extent the gallant French, are displaying a marked narrowness of spirit in this respect. Everyone who knows anything of history also knows that great social revolutions are impossible without the feminine ferment. Social progress may be measured precisely by the social position of the fair sex (plain ones included).

Marx To Ludwig Kugelmann In Hanover, London, 12 December 1868 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_12_12.htm)


Oh, and Redstar, I don&#39;t think you have any idea what evolutionary psychology is about. It is certainly not junk science.

It certainly is junk science; its central thesis is that all human social behavior is guided by the over-riding goal of inclusive reproductive fitness.

See: Alas, poor Darwin : arguments against evolutionary psychology / edited by Hilary Rose and Steven Rose, ISBN #0609605135.

Its real message, typical of junk "social science" generally, is that the elite "deserve" to be there...because they "really are superior".


Why is it that women get attributed with all this beautiful zest for life while nobody recognizes the cool things about being male?

As I noted in an earlier post, feminism is multi-faceted. The goddess-worshiping celebration of mystical femininity is one of those facets...and, from a political standpoint, of marginal interest.

This thread didn&#39;t begin with a critique of that particular kind of feminism...but rather with a sweeping attack on women in general.

I don&#39;t think there&#39;s anything particularly "cool" about being female or male in class society.

But there is a "male counterpart" to the mystical feminine thing...I forgot what it&#39;s called, but it&#39;s a bunch of guys who go off in the woods, get naked, build a campfire, and pound on home-made drums. There&#39;s even a book about it; I think it&#39;s called Iron John or something like that.


Well I&#39;m glad I was able to piss all you tight asses off.

Indeed? And what have you gained from your efforts?


The feminist movement needs to change society from the bottom up, and for the most part it has been working top-down, which results in the problems I&#39;ve been highlighting at the expense of the e-ostracization from the che-lives community.

I&#39;m sure your well-meaning advice will warm the hearts of feminists everywhere...except for the "triflin whores" of course.


But I&#39;m sick of all this party-line spewing garbage.

But what of your party-line?

Some garbage smells better than others?


Like everything else I&#39;ve said for about 8-9 posts, it was tongue in cheek.

I think "head up ass" would be a more accurate description.


Nobody has given me any substantial counterargument to my only real beef in this thread, which was with Senora Che&#39;s sig and her first reply on page 1: both argue that men are incapable of seeing women as anything other than objects to be used for our own purposes, whether personal or political.

The quotation in question is an observation on the social role of the female body.

Whether or not individuals may privately consider individual women "more" than just their bodies is irrelevant; in the public discourse, the female body is a social construct with controversial "attributes".

Indeed, you demonstrated your personal acceptance of some of those attributes in your previous posts--e.g., armpit shaving, "dykes", "triflin&#39; whores", etc.

You not only did not furnish any genuine counter-argument to the quotation, you provided a personal example of "how it works".

And now you wish to imply that you were "just joking" to "piss us off"?

Why aren&#39;t we laughing?


and PLEASE stop this womyn stuff...

"Womyn" is a linguistic innovation...everyone who speaks the language has the right to think up new words or new spellings for old words.

They look "odd" or "funny" at first, but if they "catch on", then in the course of time they will seem "normal" and the old words or spellings will look "archaic".

If you&#39;ve read material from even as late as the 19th century, you may (if you&#39;re paying attention) be struck by some of the "odd" usages...language changes.

If you don&#39;t "like" the innovation, don&#39;t use it.


The Left seriously needs to stop shrinking from the challenge of criticizing the behaviors of oppressed groups be they women, minorities, or the working class. Too often it is held as unquestionable truth that all oppressed people are noble, willful people who constantly form brilliant and admirable resistance to their oppression.

I agree completely&#33; But there is a very obvious difference between thoughtful, informed critiques and (as in this thread) patriarchal rants and verbal abuse.

Referring to feminists as "Dykes with hairy armpits" or "triflin&#39; whores" does not meet my minimum standards for a thoughtful and informed critique.


Fucking shut your mouths, all of you.

I will never understand why people come to a message board only to tell people not to post.


I started this thread in &#39;chit chat&#39;, its content pretty much guaranteed it wouldn&#39;t be a serious discussion about feminist theory. But who cares? Why be serious about everything? This is the internet, nothing wrong with shooting the shit every now and then. Lighten up.

No, you started this thread as a "rant" against "uppity women".

You even boasted of your success in "pissing people off".

Who cares? I do&#33;


.."This has befallen us.. We are powerless. We are oppressed." however true that is... don&#39;t succumb to that way of thinking, immobilized, unable to move forward. It&#39;s called Negative Action in activist theory; where one can only state the historical outline and causes without offering up any solutions. It absolutely has no constructive import whatsoever Nothing I can think of is more disenfranchising and negating than women taking ourselves out of the equation by refusing any responsibility or control over the situation but rather feeling at the behest of an invisible multi-headed monster which calls the all the shots. I am tired of women feeling pissed upon. They are pissing on themselves with their own mindset and bringing us all down as women.

Yes, there very definitely is an important segment of feminist "theory" that does emphasize "woman as helpless victim".

It&#39;s a rotten perspective, no question about it. That particular strain of feminism often allies itself with the religious fundamentalists in seeking legal protection for women from "insatiable male depravity". Some of them indeed maintain that "all heterosexual activity under patriarchy is rape" -- an astonishing assertion.

My guess is that this strain of feminism is primarily academic in origin...it seems to have little contact with the real world where women do resist patriarchy in many ways, large and small.

(I also frankly suspect some of them of careerist motives.)

But I think it would be unfair to seize upon this particular version of feminism in order to criticize the whole...most feminist writings do (in my opinion) encourage resistance to patriarchy.


...folks who post ridiculous and bombastic theoretical statements that add very little to the discussion.

???

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Guest1]

My appologies for the outbursts, here and in the CC.

I don&#39;t usually do shit like that, but these threads have degenerated into slag fights. Seeing as one member already left, I was pissed off to see people still continuing this bull. Perception&#39;s posts especially pissed me off, so I lost it.

[antieverything]

It certainly is junk science; its central thesis is that all human social behavior is guided by the over-riding goal of inclusive reproductive fitness.

See: Alas, poor Darwin : arguments against evolutionary psychology / edited by Hilary Rose and Steven Rose, ISBN #0609605135.

Its real message, typical of junk "social science" generally, is that the elite "deserve" to be there...because they "really are superior".
First of all, I think it is counterproductive to deny the basic animal essence of human behavior. Pretending that the way we engage in reproduction is somehow different and superior to that of other animals is self-deluding arrogance. Never forget that human sexuality&#39;s basis in mutual pleasure and emotional gratification is an evolutionary coincidence. Many species didn&#39;t have things work out so well for them. A large portion of the sex had by other animals is defined by rape or murder. Second, much of human behavior can in fact be best explained by reproductive goals we may not be fully aware of. Why is it so hard to accept that we choose our mates based on traits we know will increase the chance of offspring&#39;s survival whether those traits are physical or social? Evolutionary psychology has nothing to do with what people "deserve" or anyone being "superior", it is only an explanation of animal behavior. Still, this argument is often used by women to rationalize the border-line prostitution in the way they choose partners. Studies do in fact show that capital (monetary or social) is the prevailing factor in how attractive women find a male to be. By this logic, evolutionary psychology also lets a dead-beat dad or the woman who has a boyfriend on the side off the hook. Again, this misses the point.

"This brings me to the first point I want to make about what this book is not. I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. ... If you wish to extract a moral from it, read it as a warning. Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly toward a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have a chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do."

--Richard Dawkins, evolutionary psychologist


agree completely&#33; But there is a very obvious difference between thoughtful, informed critiques and (as in this thread) patriarchal rants and verbal abuse.
I don&#39;t think I&#39;m defending anything anyone else is saying. Rather, I&#39;m trying to bring a bit of productivity to the debate.

[redstar2000]

First of all, I think it is counterproductive to deny the basic animal essence of human behavior. Pretending that the way we engage in reproduction is somehow different and superior to that of other animals is self-deluding arrogance.

"Basic animal essence"? What the hell is that?

"Self-deluding arrogance"? And what is the source for this phrase?

And who is "pretending" what? The diversity and complexity of human courtship and mating is obviously far different than that of all other known species.

Good grief&#33;


...much of human behavior can in fact be best explained by reproductive goals we may not be fully aware of.

If we&#39;re not aware of them, then how can they explain anything?

Except in the fertile minds of "evolutionary psychologists", of course.


Why is it so hard to accept that we choose our mates based on traits we know will increase the chance of offspring&#39;s survival whether those traits are physical or social?

Yes, the thought of making babies with a good chance of survival is always uppermost in our minds...or some minds...or perhaps just the minds of "evolutionary psychologists".

Not to mention the "trivial" fact that if that thesis had any validity, then there sure are a lot of folks making "bad choices"...perhaps they are "genetically inferior".


Evolutionary psychology has nothing to do with what people "deserve" or anyone being "superior", it is only an explanation of animal behavior.

Does the phrase "alpha-male" ring a bell?


Studies do in fact show that capital (monetary or social) is the prevailing factor in how attractive women find a male to be.

No, what they actually show is how willing women are to overlook personal attractiveness in the pursuit of survival in class society.

A very different thing.


This brings me to the first point I want to make about what this book is not. I am not advocating a morality based on evolution.

Yeah, Dawkins is a sneaky bastard, isn&#39;t he? He lays out his thesis (that we are all unwitting robots at the service of our genes) in a "deadpan" fashion and lets the reader "draw his own conclusions" about the kind of society that is "fit and proper" for "what people are really like".

They&#39;re selfish because they&#39;re governed by selfish genes.

I can&#39;t understand why they don&#39;t serialize his books in the Wall Street Journal.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[perception]

^^^

I don&#39;t believe in &#39;human nature&#39;, but are you arguing that humans have no animal instincts whatsoever? That everything is the result of social conditioning?

[antieverything]

"Basic animal essence"? What the hell is that?

"Self-deluding arrogance"? And what is the source for this phrase?
Basic animal essence sounds stupid, admittedly...but it was the best word I could think of...what would I have said, "animality" sounds like something from Mortal Kombat and "animalness" is pretty awful too.

By self deluding arrogance, I am talking not specifically about you but about the ideas of "human exceptionality" concerning issues of sex.


And who is "pretending" what? The diversity and complexity of human courtship and mating is obviously far different than that of all other known species.
That&#39;s the point, it really isn&#39;t that different. Most of the basic premises of human courtship and mating are seen in many other animals as well&#33; The only thing that makes us different is the ability to break out of these patterns when they are counterproductive to the ideals we have created that are more than simple propagation of the species.


If we&#39;re not aware of them, then how can they explain anything?
...

Yes, the thought of making babies with a good chance of survival is always uppermost in our minds...or some minds...or perhaps just the minds of "evolutionary psychologists".

Not to mention the "trivial" fact that if that thesis had any validity, then there sure are a lot of folks making "bad choices"...perhaps they are "genetically inferior".
Have you ever studied behavioral psychology, ever? Sheesh. And when it comes to making bad choices, I don&#39;t exactly see what you are saying...the way I see it, people just do the best they can according to these principles. When it comes to women being attracted to the wrong kind of man if that is waht you are addressing, this is exactly what I&#39;m talking out&#33; It has something to do with evolutionary psychology.


Does the phrase "alpha-male" ring a bell?
It does. The question is exactly why women are attracted to "alpha-males" because it certainly isn&#39;t because of their sensitivity and it there are certainly more favorable alternatives that would be taken if sex were approached rationally.


No, what they actually show is how willing women are to overlook personal attractiveness in the pursuit of survival in class society.
No, that simply isn&#39;t the case and if it were I would have said so. What they show is that attractiveness is enhanced by wealth and power. Males of many species flaunt their ability to provide by giving gifts to potential mates and the pattern is pretty much the same in humans.


Yeah, Dawkins is a sneaky bastard, isn&#39;t he? He lays out his thesis (that we are all unwitting robots at the service of our genes) in a "deadpan" fashion and lets the reader "draw his own conclusions" about the kind of society that is "fit and proper" for "what people are really like".

They&#39;re selfish because they&#39;re governed by selfish genes.
The very point that Dawkins is trying to get across is that humans are nothing more than animals but animals with the ability to be something more. You simply can&#39;t deny that our behavior is basically designed around reproduction and survival. Sometimes these sorts of behaviors can be socially undesirable&#33; I&#39;ve made this point a million times now.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by perception+Apr 27 2004, 11:39 PM--> (perception @ Apr 27 2004, 11:39 PM)
[email protected] 27 2004, 05:48 PM
Bottom line is you&#39;re a fucking moron. Playing devil&#39;s advocate?? Whatever dude. Just admit you&#39;re fucking wrong and you&#39;re talking shit. Why are you so scared of women??

Objectifying Diana just makes you look like more of a pig. What a moron.
who the hell is Diana, and how can you OBJECTIFY SOMEONE WHO IS NOTHING MORE THAN A FEW LETTERS ON A COMPUTER SCREEN TO YOU?

The Marcos thing was a joke obviously. Like everything else I&#39;ve said for about 8-9 posts, it was tongue in cheek. But the fact you took it as seriously explains a lot. [/b]
Wait...you&#39;re joking now?? Come off it son. If I&#39;d have believed you and suddenly started kissing your arse, would you have said "nah dude, I was joking"??

Perception the way I see it you have a choice:

(i) Listen to what is being said by most of this thread (yourself excepted), get a clue and quit being a chauvinist

(ii) Leave the left wing, join the Republican Party and quit Che-Lives (or at least stay in OI).

Your "opinions" are not valid criticisms from within the left wing, they&#39;re sweeping generalisations and self-serving misconceptions from the right wing.

To be honest, if I were Malte, I&#39;d have sent him 5,000 PMs by now telling him to quit being a cock to Diana before I kicked his ass onto Stormfront.

Sorry guys...I&#39;ll let the debate continue now.

[pandora]

[QUOTE=Valkyrie,Apr 28 2004, 04:56 AM] Instead of the running script of victimization.."This has befallen us.. We are powerless. We are oppressed." however true that is... don&#39;t succumb to that way of thinking, immobolized, unable to move forward. It&#39;s called Negative Action in activist theory; where one can only state the historical outline and causes without offering up any solutions. It absolutely has no constructive import whatsoever Nothing I can think of is more disenfranchizing and negating than women taking ourselves out of the equation by refusing any responsibility or control over the situation but rather feeling at the behest of an invisible multi-headed monster which calls the all the shots. I am tired of women feeling pissed upon. They are pissing on themselves with their own mindset and bringing us all down as women.

This is very interesting to post two days after a million women march on Washington to insure reproductive freedom :D
[re-editted womyn to women the new spelling wasn&#39;t me:)]
Which women were you referring to as powerless, Gloria Steinem? If you insist on making such statements please refer to whom you are speaking of.

In general, there are very few men involved with the actual actions involved with supporting women&#39;s rights, I was happy to see some men in the March in Washington, but it was predominatantly women.

Also there are very few men taking on women&#39;s issues, besides Redstar :D , so who is doing all the work in women&#39;s health clinics, homeless shelters, battered womyn&#39;s shelters and so on if the feminist movement is so disempowered&#33;

Would really like to drop this person off who said this at a women&#39;s health clinic in Thailand to work with prostitutes, or Northern Africa to help victims of genital mutilation, or defending abortion clinics in the US South, or in a Casa de los Ninos shelter for battered womyn in the Southern US or Central America, esp. with the campesinos in Chiapas, and see what their opinion of such was after they worked arm in arm with real womyn warriors who are doing the real work. I have friends who have done many of these actions, and I know they would take real offense to your comments, and ask what you are doing.

Yes there is a misogynistic tendency is most cultures right now to dominate and oppress womyn, to fight against that you have to be aware of it, otherwise at Casa de los Ninos you may not have your shot gun ready in the middle of the night to scare off some real scary mo&#39;s.

There is a reason the #1 killer of cops is jealous husbands trying to kill their wives, it&#39;s part of the reason it&#39;s so hard to get an officer to a domestic abuse scene. Every minute of every day a womyn is brutally oppressed by a man.

Womyn continue to struggle for equal rights and justice especially within minority groups. In China womyn are often killed at birth. We have real problems in this world towards the female half of the species, as John Lennon said "Women is the _____ of the World" she works most of the hours receives a quarter of the pay, and has almost none of the land. Issues of equality are issues of social justice, and social justice is the reason I&#39;m here to begin with.

Admitting that women are oppressed has nothing to do with fighting back, and everything to do with knowing your opponent, not the men, but the mentality.
We are fighting ideologies not people. Knowledge over ignorance.

I&#39;m glad people who were not as aware of what life is like in female form posted their thoughts, because unless they expose their weakness in logic, how can we help them?

[antieverything]

I think you missed the point of what Valkyirie was trying to say. In fact, your refusal to aknowledge what we are saying reinforces our statements. Hegemony is not maintained through a strict relationship of forceful domination. Rather it is maintained through ideology formed to build consent within the oppressed. Only through analyzing the ways in which women help to support and strengthen these systems can change happen. We aren&#39;t talking about your friends or people like them. We are talking about normal, everyday women many of who consider themselves to be feminists but often help support gender oppression even within their reaction to it as well as those who put forward the politics of victimization.


Also there are very few men taking on womyn&#39;s issues, besides Redstar , so who is doing all the work in womyn&#39;s health clinics, homeless shelters, battered womyn&#39;s shelters and so on if the feminist movement is so disempowered&#33;
Oh please, if by "taking on womyn&#39;s issues" you mean being a closed-minded ass who refuses to aknowledge that things are more complicated than straight causal Marxian thought allows, I guess he is the only one.

Who does the work in womyn&#39;s health clinics homeless shelters, battered womyn&#39;s shelters and so on? I don&#39;t see the relevance since men aren&#39;t welcome in these setting...and they probably shouldn&#39;t be.

You bring up the irrelevent issue of infanticide in China but this does raise an interesting but equally irrelevant point: far more males are killed because of their gender than females. Gendercide is by far disproportionately carried out against males&#33; Does this make things any less bad for women? No.


Admitting that womyn are oppressed has nothing to do with fighting back, and everything to do with knowing your opponent, not the men, but the mentality.
We are fighting ideologies not people. Knowledge over ignorance.
Uh, thanks for saying exactly what we are trying to say, pandora&#33;


I&#39;m glad people who were not as aware of what life is like in female form posted their thoughts, because unless they expose their weakness how can we help them?
In case you forgot, this topic started because a woman felt she knew enough about how males feel towards women to make a sweeping generalization. I think you should recognize that men have valuable points of view on female behavior and feminism as well.

I&#39;ll say it one more time, nobody is saying that women aren&#39;t empowered or aren&#39;t commited. We are saying that their efforts are often misguided.

[DaCuBaN]

"Womyn" is a linguistic innovation...everyone who speaks the language has the right to think up new words or new spellings for old words.

They look "odd" or "funny" at first, but if they "catch on", then in the course of time they will seem "normal" and the old words or spellings will look "archaic".

If you&#39;ve read material from even as late as the 19th century, you may (if you&#39;re paying attention) be struck by some of the "odd" usages...language changes.

If you don&#39;t "like" the innovation, don&#39;t use it.


the new spelling from this word I can only deduce(sp?) came from the obvious inequality in our language - I merely wished to point out that changing that word just makes the language more confusing, and to change the masculine rather than femenine would seem more sensible.


Who does the work in womyn&#39;s health clinics homeless shelters, battered womyn&#39;s shelters and so on? I don&#39;t see the relevance since men aren&#39;t welcome in these setting...and they probably shouldn&#39;t be.


But this kind of inequality is just as bad - it needs nipped in the bud too. The actions of some cannot and should not be used to condemn the many. Generalisation teaches us very little.

[redstar2000]

Also there are very few men taking on womyn&#39;s issues, besides Redstar...

You give me way too much credit. But thank you. :P


Oh please, if by "taking on womyn&#39;s issues" you mean being a closed-minded ass who refuses to acknowledge that things are more complicated than straight causal Marxian thought allows, I guess [redstar] is the only one.

Back down to earth again.

If I am a "closed-minded ass" for declining to accept the scientific legitimacy of the latest incarnation of social darwinism, I&#39;ll wear those "donkey&#39;s ears" with pride.

I am closed-minded when it comes to bourgeois trash.

Too bad you aren&#39;t.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[antieverything]

I think I&#39;ve addressed your misconceptions concerning evolutionary psychology adequately already.

[democratic-socialist]

I am not a sexist, nor a rasist, nor a homophobic etc, but feminism has begun to piss me off. I belive that men and women are both equals. We are both the smae, neither one nor the other is the more important. But what I do not agree with in feminism is the un natural laws that have come up surrounding it. woman are the natural nurturers and housekeepers and men are the natural workers. This is obvious and is shown through the past. it just seems so stupid that this natural law has changed so that woman can go and get fully time jobs. dont get me wrong, woman should be able to work, but they have a duty to bring up children. Men also have a duty to keep a roof over the heads of the family. This is how it has been. This is how it should be. I do not mean to offend, but is something I have wanted to say for a long time.

[democratic-socialist]

and as for this womyn thing&#33;? what the hell is with that? i belive in political correctness, but not to the rediculous extremes that that has gone to&#33;&#33; :angry:

[redstar2000]

I am not a sexist...but feminism has begun to piss me off.

Oh? Well, you&#39;re not alone in that, to say the least.

Feminism "pisses off" a lot of people; curiously, they are almost all males.

Coincidence?


But what I do not agree with in feminism is the unnatural laws that have come up surrounding it.

Why do you invoke "nature" to buttress your own prejudices?

The only things that are truly "unnatural" need no laws to prohibit them or allow them.

It is really unnatural to live without breathing...thus no law is required to command it and a law forbidding it would be ignored.


Women are the natural [sic] nurturers and housekeepers and men are the natural workers. This is obvious and is shown through the past.

Prior to 1865, it was phrased "black people are the natural slaves and white people are the natural masters. This is shown through the past."

What has been is a most unreliable guide to what will be.


It just seems so stupid that this natural law has changed so that woman can go and get full-time jobs. Don&#39;t get me wrong, woman should be able to work, but they have a duty to bring up children.

They have a "duty"? Even if they don&#39;t have any kids? Even if they don&#39;t want any kids?

Perhaps you will suggest that not having/not wanting children is also "unnatural".

You should be very cautious about using the word "duty". The only real "duties" that we have are to keep our own promises -- promises that we freely make without constraint from anyone else.

Promises made under duress -- including social pressure -- don&#39;t count.


This is how it has been. This is how it should be. I do not mean to offend, but [it] is something I have wanted to say for a long time.

You may indeed have meant "not to offend"...but you must realize that your statements are highly offensive.

I forecast a great deal of trouble for you.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[democratic-socialist]

You dont seem to understand what I mean. I am not saying women should not work. Im not saying men are better and should not nurture children at all. I am CERTAINLY not predujice. Im saying that workaholic women damage theier children if they have them, becasue of lack of time with them. Time which NATURALLY women should spend with them. Men should also nuture their children, but children need a mother to look after them, not a carer or opear...

[redstar2000]

I&#39;m saying that workaholic women damage their children, if they have them, because of lack of time with them. Time which NATURALLY women should spend with them...but children need a mother to look after them, not a carer or au pair...

What is the nature of this "damage" and how is it measured?

Off hand, it seems to me that being a "workaholic" (male or female) is a lot more damaging to the person himself/herself than it is to those around them.

Who ever said to themselves on their deathbed, "Gee, I wish I&#39;d spent more time at work?"

But I don&#39;t see any connection with feminism here...you seem to be suggesting that people shouldn&#39;t work so hard or such long hours.

I agree.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[democratic-socialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 05:45 PM

I&#39;m saying that workaholic women damage their children, if they have them, because of lack of time with them. Time which NATURALLY women should spend with them...but children need a mother to look after them, not a carer or au pair...

What is the nature of this "damage" and how is it measured?

Off hand, it seems to me that being a "workaholic" (male or female) is a lot more damaging to the person himself/herself than it is to those around them.

Who ever said to themselves on their deathbed, "Gee, I wish I&#39;d spent more time at work?"

But I don&#39;t see any connection with feminism here...you seem to be suggesting that people shouldn&#39;t work so hard or such long hours.

I agree.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
They damage their children emotionally and can cause problems for them in later life. It is common knowledge that a child needs his mother and father.

The connection with feminism is that women, many of which campaign for equility when workign, should perhaps realise that they should also spend time with thier children, not just at work.

[BOZG]

Common knowledge.....can you provide some proof of this?

[antieverything]

Please, democratic-socialist, shut the fuck up.

[democratic-socialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 06:42 PM
Common knowledge.....can you provide some proof of this?
I&#39;m sure I can. I&#39;ll need some more time however, but you can bet i will get you some. In the meantime all I will say is this... Are you saying that children who do not see there parents are not effected in the longterm adn that thier relationship with the parents is not strained? sounds like it too me...

[BOZG]

No one can prove whether they are or not.

[Valkyrie]

REminds me of the "Cats and the Cradle" lyrics.


My child arrived just the other day,
He came to the world in the usual way.
But there were planes to catch, and bills to pay.
He learned to walk while I was away.
And he was talking &#39;fore I knew it, and as he grew,
He&#39;d say, "I&#39;m gonna be like you, dad.
You know I&#39;m gonna be like you."

And the cat&#39;s in the cradle and the silver spoon,
Little boy blue and the man in the moon.
"When you coming home, dad?" "I don&#39;t know when,
But we&#39;ll get together then.
You know we&#39;ll have a good time then."

My son turned ten just the other day.
He said, "Thanks for the ball, dad, come on let&#39;s play.
Can you teach me to throw?" I said, "Not today,
I got a lot to do." He said, "That&#39;s ok."
And he walked away, but his smile never dimmed,
Said, "I&#39;m gonna be like him, yeah.
You know I&#39;m gonna be like him."

And the cat&#39;s in the cradle and the silver spoon,
Little boy blue and the man in the moon.
"When you coming home, dad?" "I don&#39;t know when,
But we&#39;ll get together then.
You know we&#39;ll have a good time then."

Well, he came from college just the other day,
So much like a man I just had to say,
"Son, I&#39;m proud of you. Can you sit for a while?"
He shook his head, and he said with a smile,
"What I&#39;d really like, dad, is to borrow the car keys.
See you later. Can I have them please?"

And the cat&#39;s in the cradle and the silver spoon,
Little boy blue and the man in the moon.
"When you coming home, son?" "I don&#39;t know when,
But we&#39;ll get together then, dad.
You know we&#39;ll have a good time then."

I&#39;ve long since retired and my son&#39;s moved away.
I called him up just the other day.
I said, "I&#39;d like to see you if you don&#39;t mind."
He said, "I&#39;d love to, dad, if I could find the time.
You see, my new job&#39;s a hassle, and the kid&#39;s got the flu,
But it&#39;s sure nice talking to you, dad.
It&#39;s been sure nice talking to you."
And as I hung up the phone, it occurred to me,
He&#39;d grown up just like me.
My boy was just like me.

And the cat&#39;s in the cradle and the silver spoon,
Little boy blue and the man in the moon.
"When you coming home, son?" "I don&#39;t know when,
But we&#39;ll get together then, dad.
You know we&#39;ll have a good time then.

[democratic-socialist]

That is a perfect example of what I&#39;m taking about, only you must realise that a mother is needed more than a father. Women tend to feel more sympathetic and caring, especially for children. That is why it is important women are there for there children. dont get me wrong tho, men must be also, but children gain less from their fathers than there mothers. I was called a sexist earlyer, and that was very hurtful becasue I am far from sexist. Please dont say that again.

[BOZG]

Well I base my opinions on personal experience, lacking a parent is largely irrelevant.

As for being called a sexist, you haven&#39;t had a thread made about you being a sexist.

[democratic-socialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 07:30 PM
Well I base my opinions on personal experience, lacking a parent is largely irrelevant.

As for being called a sexist, you haven&#39;t had a thread made about you being a sexist.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[redstar2000]

They damage their children emotionally and can cause problems for them in later life. It is common knowledge that a child needs his mother and father.

I&#39;m afraid "common knowledge" is rarely a reliable substitute for real knowledge.

If that&#39;s the best you can do...


...only you must realise that a mother is needed more than a father. Women tend to feel more sympathetic and caring, especially for children. That is why it is important women are there for their children...

Was your mother "there for you"? I&#39;m getting "personal vibrations" from your posts.


Reminds me of the "Cats and the Cradle" lyrics.

Yes, that was a classic "tear-jerker", wasn&#39;t it?

But it&#39;s based on an unspoken presumption...that there "should" be some "special closeness" between biological parents and their children.

It ain&#39;t necessarily so...

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[BOZG]

Yes, that was a classic "tear-jerker", wasn&#39;t it?

But it&#39;s based on an unspoken presumption...that there "should" be some "special closeness" between biological parents and their children.

It ain&#39;t necessarily so...

So you do show human emotion.... =D

I have to agree you. A lot of presumptions tend to float around with emotion and human nature.

[Valkyrie]

Wasn&#39;t a tear-jerker for me. I was an emancipated minor when I was 15. I do not think children need two parents, and for me, I needed neither.

No, BOZG, he was saying that with his usual sly sarcasm. Notice the quotes.
I must say though, that I get my daily dose of humor from RS&#39;s posts. Keep &#39;um coming&#33;&#33;

[Valkyrie]

WEll, I was going to let the misunderstaning of my posts slide..but since this topic is back on top again.. It sure is tedious reexplaining something that is so elementary. However,my comp is fucked up, so, a quick post without much forethought and probably missing some vital point.

First--- a word about the word "Womyn" --- I think it ironic and not lacking amusement.. that obviously, the feminist spelling is to get as far as possible from having the word "men" contained therein... but then is replaced with the only letter of the English alphabet --- that of &#39;"y" --- that most resembles the phallus...... one of those Freudian slips I suppose. Anyway....

El Che, I do think the Victorian attitudes are socially and cultrually imposed and have assailed women for centuries... however, I think that those subtler forms of discrimination, such as the dismissive glances and the off-hand comments, the everyday shit.. is conceptualized and then internalized and processed back on woman into eating disorders, etc. and those, the way she chooses to deal with them.. is self-imposed.

Also,the highly educated woman with some priveledge (whatever that means) has to deal with those same things (the above) as her working class female counterpart. Read this article by prominent feminist Naomi Wolf, and some of the accompanying flak she is getting, especially from her sister-feminists in even daring to come forward against a man, Yale Sterling Professor of Humanities, Harold Bloom, who is obviously much more respected than her, and thus, apparently in society, counts more than her claim of having been "sexually encroached" upon within a very unequal relationship, that of student-professor.

www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9932/
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096152/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Colum...1154683,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1154683,00.html)

If you have trouble getting on the NY Metro site.. Just ask me for the article, which I have cut and pasted in an email.



But,. Yes there is a definite pecking order in society, especially US, that does not reflect it&#39;s multi-culturalism...that goes like this: White men on top... women (all women) in the middle, and than Male of other ethnicities/races on bottom...last but not least.. all immigrants.


Red STar, you are confusing the term "psychological" with "psychosomatic." Yes, there are very real origins for why a female feels like that. Again, my post to El Che explains it all. These things can&#39;t be dismissed as non-existent, because they are very prevalent in a woman&#39;s identity and in turn, how she relates to society. This I am talking about outside of the class-struggle. I believe for the most part, Communism will totally resolve those issues. But, not neccessarily these.

Pandora: Yes, what Anti-Everything has posted is the context to what I mean.

Gloria Steinem is ver powerful in getting air-time, but a bad example overall. She has also gone on the record saying that the "femininist daughters" have dropped the ball. and the endless slagging of Naomi Wolf by Camille Paglia shows that there is much internal conflict and jealous backstabbing in the feminism-as-organization. and a big turn off for alot of woman, and hard to get serious behind. NOt much sister-hood solidarity that I see.
See this article.. and the links above:
http://www.salon.com/people/col/pagl/1999/11/17/cp1117/

I also don&#39;t subscribe to the "sacred feminine" and that women are off-limits to criticism. If you want to be equal member of soceity, rather than a passive automatom, and a guest one, at that, than as a woman belonging to that group, own up to your equal responsibility and likewise equal to partial blame. (not You, in particular, the hypothetical you, as a women in general) Adult woman outnumber adult men in the US by 6 million persons. The reason they are on the bottom, is because on the whole they are unpoliticized,(again, not saying you) and thereby cooperative of alot of the circumstances they find themselves in and of society. The pop-culture they find themselves subjected to and the sexual objectification arising from it --- they have indeed help create.

The equality gap is closing in, however.

Here are some stats to chew on: though I&#39;m sure you will think they slanted to placate women, given the source.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03ff03.html

[pandora]

Originally posted by democratic&#045;[email protected] 3 2004, 05:24 PM
You dont seem to understand what I mean. I am not saying women should not work. Im not saying men are better and should not nurture children at all. I am CERTAINLY not predujice. Im saying that workaholic women damage theier children if they have them, becasue of lack of time with them. Time which NATURALLY women should spend with them. Men should also nuture their children, but children need a mother to look after them, not a carer or opear...
This is highly offensive and goes back to the child protection acts against mother&#39;s working from the begining of the last century.

I&#39;m sure you don&#39;t understand there is a historical precedent for your way of thinking that harmed millions of women for generations? Right? Under these antiquated laws juvenile delinquincy was thought to be the sole byproduct of women&#39;s rights and women working. Women could have their children taken away for working if the child got in trouble with the law. This continued for some time. And was EXTREMELY DISRUPTIVE TOWARDS POOR WOMEN&#33; Who had to work to pay the bills.

I remember the first time someone who was Catholic told me your point of view growing up in the projects which were predominatly POOR SINGLE MOTHER"S WORKING THEIR ASSES OFF, I never heard it before, of course the person that told me this was from an upper income family with two parents :D

I asked him what should happen with me and my mom who were left alone after my father had a traumatic brain injury, should my mom not work? <_<

He basically said the natural order of things was that my mother shouldn&#39;t work but should we should have been left to die. :(

Now times that answer times everyone in dire straits in the world, all the women with children left and for once I see where the right wing mind thinks, and it&#39;s sickening.

Also I regretted for 20 years of my life holding my mother&#39;s dreams back, she was very intelligent and had left a good school to have me, luckily she went back and got a certificate and did well, plus my grandmother said she had dropped out prior to having me to be a hippy :D

So I didn&#39;t feel guilty after that.
Also I have friends where the female is more powerful and a better protector and provider and the male is more poetic and sweet, I love that combination. I am definately the warrior type, from a long line of men and women who were police, military, and warriors, what should I do GO KILL MYSELF because I don&#39;t FIT INTO YOUR LITTLE WORLD VIEW>
Plus people from different cultures have dif. ideas of male and female roles, I grew up in a predominantly African American neighborhood where women fought as well as men and walked with pride. You seem lost in some weird world of Waspism? Where are you coming from? What are your cultural values,
AND WHY THE FUCK SHOULD THE GOVT SIDE WITH YOUR CULTURE AND NOT MINE&#33;
Personally i think your culture SUCKS and is unrealistic, to the reality that humans don&#39;t ALWAYS STAY WITH THE SAME PARTNER OVER TIME, DUH&#33;

Enough of this REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVE BULLSHIT that penalizes people for growing and changing from their partners, not only is it UNREALISTIC, it devalues people&#39;s lives and forces them to remain in relationships which are unsustaining and
sometimes abusive&#33; Feminista AHora :ph34r:

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 08:24 PM


But,. Yes there is a definite pecking order in society, especially US, that does not reflect it&#39;s multi-culturalism...that goes like this: White men on top... women (all women) in the middle, and than Male of other ethnicities/races on bottom...last but not least.. all immigrants.


This is a matter under some opinion, ask many minority females in the US where they feel they lie in the pecking order and it is definately on the bottom.

As a result many women in these cultures groups have "worked their asses off" to get ahead in higher education, because they knew they were screwed otherwise [construction work and trades often not an option due to the old boy network which will sometimes let a minority male in to fill quotas, of course sometimes they will use a minority female as it fills "two quotas" but this is rare.]

True some whites feel fear towards minority males, but often that is towards females as well, particulaly African Americans who can be discriminated against simply for speaking the truth to power among other things.

This is a complicated issue, but I definately say that if you look at the real statistics, and not just at the few minority females who are getting into college and getting ahead, but at actually salaries etc, minority females are definately the most screwed by society. What gains they have made they have made out of tenacity and stubbornness, but also they ARE STILL DISCRIMINATED AGAINST within their culture group by MALES WHO ARE ASHAMED BY HAVING A WOMAN DOING BETTER than them.

I used to live in New Mexico and you definately see it there, I knew women who were doing well in school, who would tell me they were forced to serve subservient roles in their families that would shock you up until a few years ago AGAINST THEIR WILL, slowly through CONSTANT pressure they were able to assert their autonomy [see my Big Fat Greek Wedding, good example] but not without the work often of many older WOMEN WHO used all their influence to allow the YOUNGER women to break free of the things that DESTROYED there lives. The biggest change creator for young women has been older women who fight for them to have the rights they have not had, and I think that is where Gloria Steinem is right, the younger generation has not done the work the older have to sustain rights because they think they are natural

THE fact is all the rights women now have were an uphill battle and if we do not fight for every mind and every inch Shit will go right back where it was, we still have a long way to go, just look at how blackballed Emma Goldman was for her ideas about sexual freedom and birth control, now women can march for these things, this used to be illegal&#33; And will be again if we don&#39;t fight.

[guerrillaradio]

Well...if nothing else, this thread has exposed the fucking conservative misogynistic bullshit that many members of the "left wing" believe. It sickens me that I&#39;m supposed to share beliefs with these morons.

FAO Perception + Democratic Socialist: join the Republican Party. See you at the end of my AK47 one day. :)


EDIT: the last comment&#39;s a joke btw...before anyone accuses me of cyber death threats hahaha.

[BOZG]

Damn I should have thought of covering my ass with an edit...

[Valkyrie]

Yes Pandora&#33;&#33; I AGREE 100%&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :):):):):):)
Peace&#33;

Ha&#33; Sorry BOZG, my posting those lyrics left us both WIDE OPEN&#33; Gotta be sharp and close-in with RS looming around. I thought we could all use a wee bit of a sing-a-long, though&#33; :P

Anyway, He&#39;s got a fluffy kitty, so he can&#39;t be ALL bad&#33; :rolleyes:

[BOZG]

I forgot about the kitten. I bet he&#39;s like Bloefeld with it though.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 09:48 PM

Anyway, He&#39;s got a fluffy kitty, so he can&#39;t be ALL bad&#33; :rolleyes:
One day that pussy&#39;s going to kick his ass.

"Meow, fuck off, meow" whips out kitty numb chucks prepares to kick ass. :P

[Valkyrie]

CAT ATTACK&#33;

Red Star ( ) v. Cat

(arghh) Bam&#33;-&#33;-Crack&#33;-Ding&#33;-(eowww&#33;)-(fuck&#33;)-Grhhhhhh&#33;-(help&#33;)- (ickk&#33;)- Joiiinngggg&#33; -Kaboom&#33;- Lick&#33; -(mommy&#33;)-(nuts&#33;)-OOOps&#33; -Pow&#33;-Quishhhhh&#33;-(run&#33;) Slam&#33; -Trip&#33;- (uggggh&#33;) -Vvrooommm&#33;-Whollop&#33;-(XX#%#@@&#33;) (Yikes&#33;) ZONK&#33;

whew&#33;&#33;&#33; Meow. Milk please&#33; Purrrrrrrr.



hahaha. just busting your ass, RS&#33;&#33;&#33;

[pandora]

Same here, no offense&#33; Just having a little fun.

[redstar2000]

You folks are closer to the truth than you know.

Shipwreck and I spent three years together after I found him in the parking lot behind my apartment building. He was perhaps two weeks old (could just barely walk) and totally soaked following a hard rain...hence his name.

I did the whole eye-dropper feeding routine (use evaporated milk) and, much to my surprise, he flourished.

His basic character was...well Stalin comes to mind. He would curl up in my lap...and then attempt to rip my hand off at the wrist.

If I went into the kitchen and then started to leave without feeding him, he would launch a vicious attack on my legs. I still have scars.

Once he got into an argument with a car. Somehow, he made his way back to my place and came staggering through the cat door (actually a window about 5 feet off the ground)...his face looked like the villain in a teen-age slasher movie, a blood-soaked visage. A &#036;150 vet bill later, he recovered.

Over the years, he trained himself to hunt...and to eat his prey (which he would bring home and take into the bathroom to kill and eat). Birds were his favorite...he even ate the beaks&#33;

He was also firmly convinced that any time I was eating meant food for him as well; he&#39;d pester me until I shared. A bite on my forearm was the sign he was really serious.

All in the past now; he naturally ran away when my apartment building burned. I&#39;ve heard that he&#39;s been seen once or twice hanging around in my old neighborhood.

I expect it won&#39;t be long until he finds a new human to terrorize.

My life is calmer now...

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Valkyrie]

:(:(:( I was wondering how your cat made it through the fire. :( you should put some signs up in the old neighborhood --- maybe if someone has him, they&#39;ll return him. :( or check with the SPCA.

I&#39;ve had cats all my life.. even did the eye dropper routine with a few liters. They are vicious little fucks, to say the least. my cat took a chunk out of my hand just yesterday. But, still, I&#39;d never want to be without one. :(

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 01:37 AM
You folks are closer to the truth than you know.

His basic character was...well Stalin comes to mind. He would curl up in my lap...and then attempt to rip my hand off at the wrist.

If I went into the kitchen and then started to leave without feeding him, he would launch a vicious attack on my legs. I still have scars.

I expect it won&#39;t be long until he finds a new human to terrorize.

My life is calmer now...


The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
I&#39;m a stray lover too, I had a little bastard that was so mean even at two months if you put your hand down, as stupid macho pals of mine did, for two months you could put it up and it would be mince meat.

He died a year ago, his name was Curtis, but he went by Karem Abdul Jabar Muhammed Ali. I kid you not, he was very active in the community.

People would come to my house and say, your cat is down at the train station grubbing food, I&#39;d say what do you want me to do about it hell come home when he&#39;s ready.

Some wacko male room mates of mine were mad cause their cat Elvis just died so they gave him the Elvis test which is to put him in a paper bag and see if he could get out, he punched through it in a heartbeat and looked around for who to kick the shit out of first claws extended.

All this endeared him to the guys, who weren&#39;t goingto let him stay except the first night he pried open the garbage pail and grabbed the pizza boxes and ate the left overs leaving the remains all over the kitchen, they thought that was so cute, "he&#39;s just like me" :ph34r:

[Valkyrie]

So, Hey REDSTAR..... I&#39;m worried about your cat. Your not just going to leave him out there.... Shipwrecked again... are ya? He&#39;s probably lost and looking for you. Indoor cats don&#39;t survive long on the outside.

I know it&#39;s been some weeks since the fire... but cats generally don&#39;t go too far from their vicinity. If you go back to what&#39;s left of the apartment and put out a bowl of food a few times and leave an old smelly shirt of yours there :) Yes, make sure it&#39;s unwashed, so he picks up the scent --- he&#39;ll know you&#39;ve been there --- and you two are bound to meet up again.
:):):)

Just go do it you lazy fuck&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :P

Seriously.. Poor cat. :(

[redstar2000]

I did that already, Valkyrie, without success.

But Shipwreck was already spending most of his time outside long before the fire...and, as I said, recognized prey as food.

Cats raised indoors do indeed have a tough time "on their own"...primarily because they don&#39;t recognize prey as food. They catch their prey...but they don&#39;t know that they&#39;re supposed to kill it and eat it.

Also there&#39;s another factor: cats are extraordinarily attached to their "territories". Even if I had found him and brought him to my new place (about 2 miles away), I think it&#39;s certain he would return to his den under my old building.

Finally, there are a large number of cats that live in my new neighborhood...and they fight a lot. I don&#39;t think Shipwreck would like it here very much at all.

And it&#39;s not "in me" to keep a cat locked up indoors.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Valkyrie]

:(:(

Yes, He&#39;ll be alright.