19
   

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

 
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 08:45 am
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
what do "decent sexual partners" do when they enter a relationship with someone and find out they are a virgin? Indulge me.


One might indulge their mystical sense of the possession of a sacred object and work on their sensuality and curiosity until they beg, abjectly, to be relieved of the burden. Then you have no responsibility and can claim that the pitiful imprecations had touched your altruistic susceptibilities beyond the point at which you thought it impolite to resist. You could then relate the nature of the imprecations in regard to the tearful pleadings for compassion and sympathy, and their persistance, to the jury of the Court of Love and throw yourself on its mercy, understanding and professional expertise in the hope that the penance the refined Ladies finally come to an agreement on is not too severe and will be graciously set aside in the event of one agreeing to be joined together in Holy Matrimony with the lady in question who is sitting in the public gallery between her sobbing Mama and Papa and surrounded by her brothers and cousins brandishing shotguns, and thus embarking upon a journey through the wearinesses and tribulations of marital bliss until death relieves the agony.

It is understandable that some men would seek to find other outlets for their carnality I suppose. Although I'm inclined to think that the gallant Ladies of the Court of Love would be quite indifferent to the fate of such persons so long as those things didn't become popular enough to challenge their imperious prerogatives and render the source of their power null and void.

With Professor Germaine Greer in the chair I think you would be in trouble. Your romantic moves are considered insolent in that direction. And two offences would exasperate her patience.

Of course, as we all know, the Courts of Love were phased out by the Holy Fathers, and not without some difficulty, and Christian theology replaced them so you'll probably get away with it unscathed.

Whether the phasing out of Christian theology will result in a restoration of the Courts of Love is a matter for speculation. If it does, and I incline to the view that it will, a scenario Aldous Huxley either never thought of or wouldn't go near with a bargepole, your male descendents might have to perform some feat of daring and sacrifice in order to place a virgin into the position of begging abjectly enough to satisfy the Court of your respectable intentions rather than a cheap box of chocolates, a few drinks, a host of fanciful promises, claims of excellence and some smarmy talk gleaned from the movies, with which the modern man is empowered to storm the citadel and, if it is convenient to him, moves on without a backward glance. Your backward's glance, which was voluntary and deserving of credit, does hint at a sense of guilt serious enough to cancel out, many times over, the credit of honesty. Honesty is hardly considered a virtue in the Courts of Love.

The Open Road is a pure Christian symbol. Don't Look Back Bobby said.

Actually TK, I wrote that to amuse Gala.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 09:18 am
Thanks for your contribution spendi.
K
O
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 09:24 am
@Diest TKO,
You told Gala TK that her ability to interpret is not one I'd boast about.

I think Gala's interpretation is an authentic feminine one. It was a fact and not an insult.

I trust my previous post partially explains why and also why you are "brain-washed" as you incorrectly label "conditioned". There is no other explanation of why you think differently from Don Quixote than that you have been conditioned.

Quote:
Not readily. Quite opposite, I didn't see a topic there. aidan found one though and I couldn't disagree it was relevant to discussion.


It was me who introduced Mr Letterman for the precise reason that the incident/s are relevant to this discussion. Rebecca couldn't have found a reason had one not been there in the first place.

It is most ungallant of you to have raised, never mind continue to harp upon, any speculations concerning Ms Winfrey. Should she become embroiled in a scandal of that nature it would be fair enough but as she isn't it is not.

There is reported to be a South Korean lady who inherited sole control of a large steel company. It was also reported that to qualify as a member of her board of directors a man, and they were all men, had to perform certain rites to her satisfaction. Perhaps you might raise cases of that nature rather than villify Ms Winfrey's reputation.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 09:29 am
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
Henry Ford deserves to be noted for his manufacturing of the Model T, but faced with the decision to by a Model T or a Honda Civic today, the Civic is built with a greater understanding of engineering and materials; it is superior in almost every way. Rejecting Greer's ideas doesn't mean rejecting feminism, nor does it mean rejecting Greer her respect.


What a ridiculous and profoundly male chauvinist metaphor that is. Stendhal was being satirically ironic when he referred to "her machine". I somehow don't think you are TK.
Gala
 
  2  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 09:50 am
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
I have a hard time believing you don't understand what I've already said about this, however I'll humor you and spell it out.

Thank you for humoring me, and my deepest apologies for making you stoop so low to actually articulate your views.
Quote:
What exactly do you think I did here? What wild journey has your imagination taken you on? How EXACTLY did I not show patience to be a "decent sexual partner?"

Don't get in a lather. If I don't feel you've given a complete anwer I am going to question it, especially when you've brought up the topic of virginity. I have no idea what kind of a boyfriend you are to your girlfriends, but you do seem a bit defensive about it.

Quote:
Better yet, in your opinion, what do "decent sexual partners" do when they enter a relationship with someone and find out they are a virgin? Indulge me.

I'm not here to indulge you, you already indulge yourself enough--you started this thread.

Quote:
Henry Ford deserves to be noted for his manufacturing of the Model T, but faced with the decision to by a Model T or a Honda Civic today, the Civic is built with a greater understanding of engineering and materials; it is superior in almost every way. Rejecting Greer's ideas doesn't mean rejecting feminism, nor does it mean rejecting Greer her respect.


Who said you're rejecting Germaine Greer? All I said is the woman has balls. Instead you use some ornate metaphor that I only imagine you're patting yourself on the back as you write. Henry Ford? Honda? Yea, I get what you're getting at, but it's weak, nonetheless.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 11:15 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
Henry Ford deserves to be noted for his manufacturing of the Model T, but faced with the decision to by a Model T or a Honda Civic today, the Civic is built with a greater understanding of engineering and materials; it is superior in almost every way. Rejecting Greer's ideas doesn't mean rejecting feminism, nor does it mean rejecting Greer her respect.


What a ridiculous and profoundly male chauvinist metaphor that is. Stendhal was being satirically ironic when he referred to "her machine". I somehow don't think you are TK.

I didn't refer to "her machine" at all. What is it that you think that you're talking about here? You're so scatter brained at times, it's amazing.

Making a metaphor about Ford and his pioneering vice that of Greer and her's is not chauvinistic outside of your imagination.

T
K
O
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 11:24 am
@Diest TKO,
[quote="Diest TKO ]because THEY were caught up in the mysticism of the female virginity. Do you believe that women DON'T mysticize their virginity just like some men do? [/quote]

I thought we'd gone well past those days. Shame that it seems to have dropped back 70 or 80 years in parts of the U. S.
0 Replies
 
Gala
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 11:30 am
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
I didn't refer to "her machine" at all. What is it that you think that you're talking about here? You're so scatter brained at times, it's amazing.


Scattebrained? I'd say you're the scatterbrain here and not doing a very good job of thinking/researching through your themes. Feminist theory always turns its eye toward gender equality and social relations so spendius' comment resonates. You're adhering to and referencing a social system dominated by males. And, just as an aside-- Henry Ford had to have been one of the biggest Nazi-loving putz's on the planet.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 11:31 am
@Gala,
Gala wrote:

Quote:
I have a hard time believing you don't understand what I've already said about this, however I'll humor you and spell it out.

Thank you for humoring me, and my deepest apologies for making you stoop so low to actually articulate your views.

It's not the low stooping that gets me in a lather, it's the repeating myself. In my answer, I didn't introduce any new information I had not already. Perhaps you can stoop as low as to take the time to read in the future before making wild conclusions about somebody else's decency.

Gala wrote:

Quote:
What exactly do you think I did here? What wild journey has your imagination taken you on? How EXACTLY did I not show patience to be a "decent sexual partner?"

Don't get in a lather. If I don't feel you've given a complete anwer I am going to question it, especially when you've brought up the topic of virginity. I have no idea what kind of a boyfriend you are to your girlfriends, but you do seem a bit defensive about it.

You having "no idea" doesn't seem to prevent you from drawing offensive conclusions. I'm not impressed.

As for being defensive, absolutely. You've clanged my decency against some unarticulated/unspoken/undescribed model of what a decent person would do. That's bullshit. I'm supposed to give a damn. you do seem a bit offensive about it.

I suppose you care not about being offensive. I care not about being defensive about defending my "decency" from someone who knows nothing about my personal affairs.

Gala wrote:

Quote:
Better yet, in your opinion, what do "decent sexual partners" do when they enter a relationship with someone and find out they are a virgin? Indulge me.

I'm not here to indulge you, you already indulge yourself enough--you started this thread.

You apparently don't plan to defend your ideas. I accept your concession on this matter. Moving on.
Gala wrote:

Quote:
Henry Ford deserves to be noted for his manufacturing of the Model T, but faced with the decision to by a Model T or a Honda Civic today, the Civic is built with a greater understanding of engineering and materials; it is superior in almost every way. Rejecting Greer's ideas doesn't mean rejecting feminism, nor does it mean rejecting Greer her respect.


Who said you're rejecting Germaine Greer? All I said is the woman has balls. Instead you use some ornate metaphor that I only imagine you're patting yourself on the back as you write. Henry Ford? Honda? Yea, I get what you're getting at, but it's weak, nonetheless.

Again with having to repeat myself. You introduced Greer into this thread as something I needed to read to "snap out" of my "precious" views. I have read some Greer now, and understand it's significance, but I can see many ways in which her then revolutionary ideas, are now out of date.

Like Ford, a pioneer of manufacturing, Greer was a pioneer of the 20th century feminist movement. Ford's great idea at start up has since gone under long and meaningful iterations of improvement. Greer's ideas have too in the works of others. We don't need to buy a car with out of date tech and we don't need to buy into a brand of feminism which has out of date ideas either. Ford deserves his place in history for what he did, so does Greer.

If my metaphor is so "weak," I'd love to hear you talk more about how Greer has "balls."

T
K
O
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 12:37 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
I didn't refer to "her machine" at all. What is it that you think that you're talking about here? You're so scatter brained at times, it's amazing.


I thought your comparison between what Ms Greer had been focussing upon and a mechanical technological progress was entirely inappropriate. If you came in my pub on a Sat night you would know what I mean. I don't think that an NCO in the Roman army would be in any way surprised by the antics on display.

Ms Greer is, I think, conscious of having let the cat out of the bag in the heady days of her youthful enthusiasms and she seems to have spent most of the time since, having been bought off with a professorship and the attendant joys associated with such a position, trying to put it back in a manner she is probably hoping no-one will notice.

She even wrote a book about her father. That was looking back bigtime. She might have been aware that her father had read that she had said that men were like carrots--cheap and plentiful and easily cooked. He was a man after all. It likely meant with present company excepted.

She exasperated Norman Mailer sufficiently for him to get out his tool, if I may continue with your train of thought, and bang it on the table. instead of the gavel, in front of a large and attentive audience. Or so I read.

You really ought be gobbling up Stendhal by now having been given a nudge-nudge wink-wink, say no more. Stendhal is what any young man needs to round out his education.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 01:45 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
As for being defensive, absolutely. You've clanged my decency against some unarticulated/unspoken/undescribed model of what a decent person would do. That's bullshit. I'm supposed to give a damn. you do seem a bit offensive about it.


I think I articulated and described the model the Ladies of the Courts of Love had in mind of the proper manner in which to approach an innocent lady of refinement and dignity in the days when romantic protocol held sway. In the higher circles I mean. The peasants were like monkeys.

Now they print out 10 million chocolate box covers with a romantic seeming semblance in order that you are not put to too much trouble. And plastic umbrellas in the cocktails. (Made in Taiwan). Having to undergo certain courtship rituals is a pronounced feature of the evolutionary process in the higher animals. The peacock has had to develop a fantastic array of feathers to have a chance of a sniff. And forego camouflage.

It is a basic tenet of male chauvinist piggery that the ladies should accept the male definitions of decency.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 02:13 pm
@spendius,
I didn't force a definition of decency on anyone, nor did I accuse anyone of being indecent. Rather opposite, actually. Asking someone to share what definition of decency they are using, is fair game.

If Gala had "the balls" to post up what she thinks a "decent" person would have done, then we''d have something to compare her criticism to. As it stands, we don't. If she does share, and I reject it, it doesn't resolve to chauvinism unless I use chauvinistic rationale to reject it. It's a because Gala says so standard as is. I'm being asked to accept her definition, without having that definition presented. It's a joke.

Take it up with Gala if you want to point fingers and name call people who are trying make others accept their definition of decency.

T
K
O
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2009 03:30 pm
@Diest TKO,
You might imagine Gala had made a presentation similar to the one I have. It is a well known position. I'm not claiming any originality for it. It's old hat.

And it has been put to you. It has been put to me. Where I come from one was expected to marry a lady whose virginity one took. Or emigrate.
0 Replies
 
Gala
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 07:58 am
@Diest TKO,
What? That's the best you can do? I say you're defensive and you say I'm offensive? C'mon TKO, I think you're so used to hanging around with all your cool, close friends who tell you everything you do is "awesone."

I never challenged your decency, if your self-absorption weren't so pronounced you wouldn't get so wounded and would stand back and realize you did not articulate yourself very well. By saying "I was conditioned" explains nothing except you were a victim. And, in the annals of chauvinism, you're doing what a lot of men (and women) do automatically; blame the woman.

I've already explained why your argument using Henry Ford is weak. If you would like me to re-post it I will.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 09:17 am
@Gala,
I'm getting the impression Gala from your failure to respond to my promptings on the Courts of Love that feminism is for you some sort of counselling service for waifs and strays.

TK is guilty, by his own admission to having issues with his two virgins, of being anti-feminist except maybe if he is working with the definition I just provided.

He must have assumed that ladies can be in error to have had issues. With two as well. Ladies can never be in error. They are the high authority of evolution.
And TK is an evolutionist don't you know. Actually he is an evolutionist for one reason only. It is to enable him to attack the Christian religion because he is at odds with it on matters related to certain sexual practices.

He is much more comfortable arguing with you over who is offensive or defensive and what is decency? That should concern you a little. Both of you seem very wary of discussing real feminism preferring instead unresolvable spats.
The Pentacle Queen
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 09:22 am
@spendius,
This thread has got so silly.

Quote:
TK is guilty, by his own admission to having issues with his two virgins, of being anti-feminist except maybe if he is working with the definition I just provided.

No, he said THEY had the' issue', and HIS issue was that they made it a big deal.

Quote:
He is much more comfortable arguing with you over who is offensive or defensive and what is decency? That should concern you a little. Both of you seem very wary of discussing real feminism preferring instead unresolvable spats.

Well perhaps you would like to put us back on track then, spendius.
Gala
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 10:40 am
@spendius,
Ha. I didn't realize they were promptings. How courtly of you.

A few years ago a book came out called "The Rules" It gave step-by-step instructions on how a woman ought to proceed if she wanted to snag a guy for marriage. The authors had their fingers on the pulse of some elemental issues about amle/female relations-- Men were equipped for the hunt and women were put them off as much as possible. The woman expects to get wooed and eventually asked to marry.

I think we have the carry over from the Courts of Love to thank for this.

Those authors did tap into something elemental about men. I have found, the very best way to scare most men off is to be the aggressor. The only time this is not the case is if the man is married, and then he appreciates a sense of fear because he's so bored out of his mind in his marriage.

No, feminism for me is not about counseling for waifs and strays, however, the waifs and strays who are firmly ensconced in a college curriculum are more prone toward a love affair with feminism, at least in the short term.

And let's face it,the world is still run by a majority of men. Witness the absolute bashing of Hillary Clinton. Witness the dumbing down of Michelle Obama into a fashion icon, because, god forbid if she'd show some anger, or express her true viewpoint.

I don't claim to be a feminist. Although there are women I admire who are. For example, Madeline Albright weaved her way to the top by initially being indispensible in a time when women didn't hold positions of power-- she became a wife and a mother first and then pursued her advanced degrees all the while volunteering for work that men wouldn't do.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 10:53 am
@The Pentacle Queen,
Quote:
This thread has got so silly.


It's a silly subject Queenie.

Quote:
No, he said THEY had the' issue', and HIS issue was that they made it a big deal.


If they said it was a big deal it was a big deal "Cos!!!"

Quote:
Well perhaps you would like to put us back on track then, spendius.


Revisit my posts and then tell me how you lost track. They were simple enough.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 11:27 am
@Gala,
Thank you for your graciousness and for taking up some of your precious time to address a lowly creature such as science has led me to think I am.

Quote:
I have found, the very best way to scare most men off is to be the aggressor. The only time this is not the case is if the man is married, and then he appreciates a sense of fear because he's so bored out of his mind in his marriage.


"Sometimes I wonder what's going on in the mind of Miss X
Sometimes I wonder what's going on in the mind of Miss X
She got such a sweet disposition
I never know what the poor girl's gonna do to me next."

What a chap might think of a girl with an aggressive disposition is enough to scare me.

A lot of married men are quite content with their boring marriages. It is women's magazines who have put it about that being bored in marriage represents failure. That is because the type of woman who gets into that sort of work is frightened of boredom in case she finds herself with time to think. It is precisely that characteristic that editors are looking for. The more discontented the readers can be made with the mundane the more goods they can sell. Obviously. And who better to do the job than women who are easily bored. And they are a miniscule segment of the population. It's a self-selecting mechanism.

Quote:
all the while volunteering for work that men wouldn't do.


That made me smile.

I went into bat for Mrs Clinton on the threads about the primaries.

Yes--I don't think we are ready for Mrs Obama venting anger and expressing her point of view. All the chairs in American living rooms might end up pressed back against the walls. Involuntarily.

Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 12:31 pm
@Gala,
Gala wrote:

What? That's the best you can do? I say you're defensive and you say I'm offensive? C'mon TKO, I think you're so used to hanging around with all your cool, close friends who tell you everything you do is "awesone."

Well, it was an absurd attack on your part Gala. Saying someone is being defensive, when you're vomiting out a bunch of unqualified insults is a bit stupid.

Speaking of unqualified statements. What do you know of my "cool" and close friends, or what they say to me?

Gala wrote:

I never challenged your decency, if your self-absorption weren't so pronounced you wouldn't get so wounded and would stand back and realize you did not articulate yourself very well. By saying "I was conditioned" explains nothing except you were a victim. And, in the annals of chauvinism, you're doing what a lot of men (and women) do automatically; blame the woman.

You directly challenged my decency. You said that I must have been a indecent sexual partner. That's pretty direct, and very insulting.

Blaming the woman? Nice spin, but it's bullshit. It was unfair in those relationships to establish some sort of debt like that on me. Their choice to do that, put a obstacle in the relationship. I do blame them for that obstacle, but they are not reduced to that obstacle, nor was the relationship hinged upon it. It was their fault, but they don't get the blame because of their gender. They get the blame because of their actions and statements.

Do you believe that women are incapable of fault? Do you think that if a man identifies that fault in a individual they are being chauvinistic? I haven't said that all women do this, or deserve blame for this. No. I'm simply sharing two examples of women contrary to your original statement. Your inflation of these examples into my "sexual indecency" and "defensiveness" is unnecessary drama. Grow up.

Gala wrote:

I've already explained why your argument using Henry Ford is weak. If you would like me to re-post it I will.

No need. Here is what you've wrote.
Gala wrote:
Instead you use some ornate metaphor that I only imagine you're patting yourself on the back as you write. Henry Ford? Honda? Yea, I get what you're getting at, but it's weak, nonetheless.

Gala wrote:
And, just as an aside-- Henry Ford had to have been one of the biggest Nazi-loving putz's on the planet.

You didn't say why Gala. You just declared it weak. Later you said he loved Nazis. It's still a valid metaphor, but if you are so hung up on Ford, then substitute Ford for the Wright brothers, and cars for planes. The metaphor doesn't require Ford, it requires some pioneer of some field which has grown in understanding significantly since then.

I'm getting tired of your shallow attacks. I do not know why you've such contempt for my posts, but get over it. I've asked you to defend your statements, and you've acted as if that is below you. It's too hard for me to take you serious. Grow up.

T
K
O
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/03/2024 at 06:12:10