19
   

What qualifies a man to talk about an issue like feminism?

 
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 09:32 pm
@aidan,
aidan wrote:
You know I think it's sexist to believe that a man loves the feminine more than a female loves the masculine.

Why should the male attraction to the female be any more real or stronger than the female attraction to the male?

Well put.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 09:51 pm
@aidan,
Quote:
Why should the male attraction to the female be any more real or stronger than the female attraction to the male?
Are you guys special or something?


Yes we are, we make up our minds whether we are attracted to guys or gals, and we stick with it. No doing both, no flip flopping. Women on the other hand tend to be shall we say more flexible. Many women can fall in love with either men or women, and quite a few decide not to limit themselves to one or the other. Women's love for men could be weaker because if it does not work they always have plan B, to go into intimate relationship with women.

The gist of Women's flexibility has been proven by science, and it tracks with my life experience,
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 10:01 pm
I can't bear to follow all of this, which is too bad, as it is an interesting subject to me. As I see it from my occasional checking in, we are dealing with hawkeye as noise.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 10:25 pm
@ossobuco,
Quote:
As I see it from my occasional checking in, we are dealing with hawkeye as noise.


the alternate explanation is that you don't get it enough to track my comments. The interplay between masculine and feminine is interesting and I have studied it at length. My two favorite masculine views are david dieda and thomas moore. Though neither of them are thought of particularly fondly by the establishment they are not noise, nor am I. An unwelcome complication to your well ordered personal mythology, maybe.

Can we carry on with the subject now, or shall we have more rounds of personal attack and defense??
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 10:42 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye, I was an early defender of you, giving you intellectual room, for reasons RG alludes to, as I couldn't quite pin down this or that, when most others were slamming you. I gave up at some point, after yet another obnoxious post by you, finally deciding that you weren't some constructivist.

Personal attack - yes, at this point I'll do that. You are spamming our relationship threads. I don't get it enough to track your comments? That's farce.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 10:51 pm
@ossobuco,
I think I'll start to call you Pig.

ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 10:59 pm
@ossobuco,
TKO, I just realized I was acting out on your thread, not usually useful.

Make me feel better, send photos from your trip..
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 02:06 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Have you never been "on heat" Rebecca.

Do they really say 'on heat' in England? In America we say, 'in heat'.
I'm gonna do a casual survey today - how many people say 'on heat' instead of 'in heat' and I might add fansy's question about whether more people say 'there and then' or 'then and there' (which applies to this hypothetical situation when you think about it).
'On heat' sounds like you're a saucepan sitting on the hob (to put it in language you'll understand).

Yes, I have felt an instant attraction in which I thought to myself, 'I'd like to speak to that person to find out what they're about' - and I usually handle it by saying something like, 'Hello - I hate to bother you, but do you happen to have a pen I can borrow? Or, 'Do you know what time it is?'
Initiating conversation has never been difficult for me.
I've never found it necessary to invent a wellness conundrum or invent some sort of related subject for a pretend thesis to start a conversation with someone I've found interesting.
Quote:
We do the silliest things when in that state. It's nothing to be ashamed of. It has science to give it integrity.

Yes we do, no it's not and yes it does.
Quote:
I wouldn't be surprised if Dawkins's second and third wives had only come in to his office to ask him for advice about their thesis on bi-valvular molluscs. Or blood clotting in chiclids.

Yeah - maybe THEY did - and then maybe HE took over from there.
I mean after all - he's the guy who's had three wives - how many husbands have each of them had? Do we even know?
0 Replies
 
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 03:35 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Why should the male attraction to the female be any more real or stronger than the female attraction to the male?
Are you guys special or something?


Yes we are, we make up our minds whether we are attracted to guys or gals, and we stick with it. No doing both, no flip flopping. Women on the other hand tend to be shall we say more flexible. Many women can fall in love with either men or women, and quite a few decide not to limit themselves to one or the other. Women's love for men could be weaker because if it does not work they always have plan B, to go into intimate relationship with women.

The gist of Women's flexibility has been proven by science, and it tracks with my life experience,


Seriously Hawkeye. This is a silly post.
Have you never heard of gay or bisexual men? I have a male friend who can't decide, hasn't been able to decide since he was about 16, and is currently going through a period of enforced celibacy.

If Women's flexibility has been 'proven' by science would you care to give us a link?
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 03:44 am
@The Pentacle Queen,
The Pentacle Queen wrote:
If Women's flexibility has been 'proven' by science would you care to give us a link?

I almost spit up my drink laughing.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 05:21 am
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
I'm a bit tired of only talking about feminism in terms of sexual acts or expression.


But those matters are at the root of feminism. The starting point. The traditional institutions regulating the relations between men and women are derived from the physical and psychological differences between the sexes and their separate roles in reproduction. Feminists downplay these traditions and differences to help them change the arrangements but without any recognition of the functions of them.

Quote:
There are a lot of topics that get pushed to the side, which are just as important which have nothing to do with "a few women" talking "dirty."


The few women I was talking about when I used those phrases are those in Media who have been setting the agenda. They are not typical women. And they are encouraged to "talk dirty" by editors because it sells.

Here's an issue I have experience of. A feminist supplement in our local paper had a double-spread "feechewer" about women being shown how to change a wheel on a car. There were pics of a garage with heating and a polished floor and as each idiotic woman came in to be shown how to do the job (£10 fee) the car was how the previous idiotic woman had left it. It wasn't on the hard shoulder of the motorway or in a country lane, the jack handle wasn't lost among the shopping, the jack itself wasn't one of those cheap ones that come with the car, it wasn't dark, it wasn't pouring down, there weren't other cars whizzing past a few feet away, the wheel nuts weren't rusted on from not being removed in the previous five years and the spare wheel wasn't in a rack under the car held in place by a rusted contraption.

What there was was a pair of protective gloves to prevent any breaking of manicured and painted fingernails or skinning of knuckles, a nice soft mat to kneel on and a handsome mechanic standing by in case any awkwardnesses arise.

The main pic was of the Feechewers Editoress beaming with pleasure in the centre of a group of local lasses who had been relieved of £10 each and were now fully abled to do roadside maintenance without the aid of a man.

The sub-text was, of course, that doing without the aid of a man saved having to submit to certain indignities.

I'm old enough to remember the days when a woman in a breakdown had only to stand by her car looking helpless and forlorn and within a minute or two men would pull up to see if they could be of any assistance. Not any more. Thanks to feminists there are some men who won't get in a lift with a woman if there is no-one else riding. The Editoress was 28 and single.

In another article "dangly bits" were referred to and in another the "spindly legs" of the Tour de France riders.

I know all about feminism. It is a pain in the neck to men and women who aren't making a living out of it.








0 Replies
 
Gala
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 05:21 am
@The Pentacle Queen,
Quote:
Really?
Yeah maybe you could think up some minor issue and then casually ask for help with it.

What about: 'I haven't got a boyfriend and need help to maintain a healthy and active sex life.'

A bunch of years ago, after I'd graduated college, I audited a university class on Islam. This was before Islam had made onto the radar as we know it now.

I found the teacher of the class to be boring, artless, poor at presenting the material and generally too stiff to turn the material into anything but a list of topics. He happend to be young, tall, and I guess, handsome.

One day as I lamented over a comment a student made about an ancient Islamic bowl "It doesn't look symetrical", I decided to have a look around at my classmates. I realized the majority of them didn't give a rat's ass about the class-- they were in college to get laid and have a good time.

At the end of that very class I saw a young women, clad in leather pants, approach the professor. She made ga-ga eyes while talking to him and did this flitty thing with her hair. Her actions were more suggestive than if she's stripped of her clothes and tacklled him then and there.

Again, another revelation; they think this dullard professor is a stud. Hooray! for the coed with the leather pants for her blatant flirtation, that's how feminism has advanced us. She wanted the sex, I imagine and not much more. For this I give her credit. The fact that she had no clue about the nuances of the Islamic world was another matter entirely.
Gala
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 05:28 am
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
Women came in for lots of things, and not all of them sexually related either. I'm a bit tired of only talking about feminism in terms of sexual acts or expression. There are a lot of topics that get pushed to the side, which are just as important which have nothing to do with "a few women" talking "dirty."


Yeah, but you're the one who brought up the viriginity/sexuality topic. And I am still waiting for your answers to my questions about why your experiences with the virgins was so difficult. Reality is, much of what feminism is about is women living up their fullest sexual potential.

Gala
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 05:41 am
@aidan,
Oh, I agree with you about even keel. Especially when it comes to doctors-- I prefer women, mostly because they live it too. Germaine Greer talks about how so many unecessary hysterectomies were performed in the 60s because the gyno's were all men who figured if a women had a problem with her reproductive organs than you might as well remove them...

However, as a college student, I would bypass the wellness educator all together and go straight to the professional-- the shrink for my head, the nutrionist for diet, the primary care doctor for sleep issues, etc. A wellness educator, especially one who is a peer is not equipped to deal with much more than a supportive role, or to be a cheerleader to get me up and running and maybe to hand out some condoms. I might go to the wellness person if they can refer me to a professional, but seeking counsel? I don't think so.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 05:42 am
@Gala,
Quote:
She wanted the sex, I imagine and not much more.


I'm more inclined to think that she was after friendly marking of her exam papers and qualifying the easy way. Once qualified she could take a course in Barbara Stanwyk movies.
Gala
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 05:55 am
@spendius,
Ha. You've remined me about that too-- seeing as he was a stud why not have a friendly grade-boosting poke?

One thing about this university, it was all pass/fail, and to pass all you had to do was show up. The professor, in his own wooden way didn't give a **** about the students as he saw the job as a spring board for bigger and better. I do remember observing him as Mz. Leatherpants attempted her seduction-- he was unreadable, stoic even. That lil' huzzy wasn't going sway him, nosiree.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 06:49 am
@Gala,
Gala wrote:

Quote:
Women came in for lots of things, and not all of them sexually related either. I'm a bit tired of only talking about feminism in terms of sexual acts or expression. There are a lot of topics that get pushed to the side, which are just as important which have nothing to do with "a few women" talking "dirty."


Yeah, but you're the one who brought up the viriginity/sexuality topic. And I am still waiting for your answers to my questions about why your experiences with the virgins was so difficult.

I already explained. PQ, noted it already too. The fact that they were virgins, created a inequity in the relationship. In both cases, I was conditioned to think I owed them something. Think what you like about sexual exchanges, but these situations are examples of relationships. The notion that one person owes (indefinately at that) the other created a problem for me in the relationship. I did not seek out either person because they were a virgin, I was attracted to each at the time for who they were. I had already been dating for a while before I even found out they were virgins in both cases.

I certainly did introduce the topic of virginity & sex into the dialog, but I entered it as an example of social inequity in how men and women are treated and the pressures they may experience (from a contemporary standpoint). Comments in this thread lead me to believe that some stigmas and pressures have changed with generations.

I only introduced my experiences when you charged that men mystify women's virginity. I can't disagree that some people do mystify it, but I know better than to confine that to solely (or even predominantly) men.
Gala wrote:

Reality is, much of what feminism is about is women living up their fullest sexual potential.

I can accept that, sure. It still isn't the whole of it, and it seems to monopolize the dialog a lot the time.

A discussion on women, exploitation and consumerism is an example of a topic which is important and has nothing to do with (depending on the product I suppose) "living up to their sexual potential."

We can talk about the sex, but we could also take time to address topics off of sex.

UPDATE: I've been reading essays and exerpts of Greer online, and trying my best to avoid reviews and critiques on her writing. So far, I feel she's a little outdated (at least the passages I've found from Eunuch) and some themes of hers are a bit contradicting. I see very clearly how she is a pioneer, her writing definately calls for the rejection of the nuclear family model for it's oppression of women, but she seems to eager to coach women into her rules which themselves would be a sort of different bondage (an example is the contradiction between her thoughts on not burning bras and rejecting monogomy). I'm with her, on what she see wrong about 80% of the times, but only with her for about 10% of the time on her ideas forward. I understand why she deserves respect for her writing, but certainly not worship.

T
K
O
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 10:45 am
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
A discussion on women, exploitation and consumerism is an example of a topic which is important and has nothing to do with (depending on the product I suppose) "living up to their sexual potential."


What about a discussion on men, exploitation and consumerism. Men are getting killed and maimed. Not having their bottoms felt at.

That is just what is wrong with all this feminism. It proceeds as if men don't exist except as a threat.

And it blithely assumes that capitalist entrepreneurs will not employ women on the same terms as men because they are women. Capitalist entrepreneurs would obviously employ women on better terms than men if they were more efficient. And it is the customers of capitalist entrepreneurs who determine how they manage affairs.

That's the big joke. Most of the customers are women. Hence, by a simple logic, deviously avoided by feminists and their lickspittals and lackeys, it is the customers who discriminate against women.

Which is why the demand side has more sex equality. It is a monopoly and can afford to ignore customers. Any fool can afford to do the "decent thing" when there isn't a mass of bargain hunters milling around and the service is forced on the public by law.

Feminism is an argument for government setting the prices of all goods and services and, in the last analysis, for outsourcing production jobs to where women are seriously exploited. And men.

That's why they talk about sexual matters all the time. Economics and ethics are boring.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 11:01 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
A discussion on women, exploitation and consumerism is an example of a topic which is important and has nothing to do with (depending on the product I suppose) "living up to their sexual potential."


What about a discussion on men, exploitation and consumerism. Men are getting killed and maimed. Not having their bottoms felt at.

There is nothing wrong with talking about how men are exploited. Nobody said it's off limits. Why does it have to take place in a discussion on feminism? Can't it be it's own topic?

It seems like you can't stand a topic of discussion where you're not the center of attention.
spendius wrote:

That is just what is wrong with all this feminism. It proceeds as if men don't exist except as a threat.

This is totally bogus. It does not proceed as you claim to pretend men don't exist, or simply reduce us to being a threat. We can discuss a topic specifically as it pertains to a women, without it being as if men "don't exist."
spendius wrote:

That's the big joke. Most of the customers are women. Hence, by a simple logic, deviously avoided by feminists and their lickspittals and lackeys, it is the customers who discriminate against women.

This point does not assist your argument.
spendius wrote:

That's why they talk about sexual matters all the time. Economics and ethics are boring.

I think you aren't listening then. That, or your aren't listening when they are talking about economics or ethics. Perhaps, it's you who find these things boring. They are being talked about, and if you aren't hearing them, it's your fault, not theirs.

T
K
O
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 11:42 am
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
It seems like you can't stand a topic of discussion where you're not the center of attention.


Sheesh!! I bet that made Gala laugh.

A discussion about women cannot take place without a discussion about men. We are in this together.

Quote:
This is totally bogus. It does not proceed as you claim to pretend men don't exist, or simply reduce us to being a threat. We can discuss a topic specifically as it pertains to a women, without it being as if men "don't exist."


It is not totally bogus at all. The conditions under which such a discussion is taking place has been created by men and women outside the arena in which it is happening. The lights and heating are on. There are no barbarians or wild animals. The funds are provided. The discussion wouldn't even be taking place if any of the important conditions were not being met.

What you have is an ivory tower of narcissism which simply takes everything else for granted. Like rich men's daughters are often said to do.

Quote:
This point does not assist your argument.


Assertion. And a ridiculous one. I gave it because I thought it assisted my argument and I gave the reason. Do you really think TK that contributors as intelligent as we have here are going to think your assertion has any value on the basis that you blurted it out because you had no other answer. That's claiming to be the centre of attention with a vengeance. That you only need say that and provide no justification is matron-speak in the nursery.

Quote:
I think you aren't listening then. That, or your aren't listening when they are talking about economics or ethics. Perhaps, it's you who find these things boring. They are being talked about, and if you aren't hearing them, it's your fault, not theirs.


What a load of blather. I only ever think in terms of economics. I'm not good on ethics I'll admit. I only mentioned ethics because they are a do-gooder's stock in trade and these consumers, who are mainly women, as are TV audiences, never mention ethical matters in relation to their sisters in the sweat shops of Asia whose cheap goods they rush to buy. They are not feminists at all. They are selfists. And if we take much more notice of them we are doomed.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/02/2024 at 09:20:01