Why aren't feminists speaking out about this???

I have to admit that I wasn't paying much attention to this thread, or your argument. But Yo, your Jesse Pinkman imitation caught my attention.

The question I have for you, and if you've already answered it elsewhere, forgive me, is do you know that professional (for lack of a better term) feminists have not addressed this phenomenon, and if so how?

I can't say that I devote much time (or any actually) following feminist blogs and the like, but I certainly haven't seen a feminist response to this matter in conventional news and opinion sources, but while that may mean that it's not a burning issue for them, it doesn't mean they haven't commented upon it or "spoken out" against it.

I would expect this behavior, even at the most modest level, to be frowned upon by professional feminists ("PF's") (hell, some of them frown upon any attraction a woman has for a man), but I can't imagine that they wouldn't have a problem with this behavior in it's most extreme manifestations (some of which you've described here) The extreme behavior, in my opinion, is a manifestation of a bent personality (regardless of how it was developed), but it does seem like the PF's would have a field day with it, and would not be very proud of the sisters who engaged in it.

Having said this, I don't think that PF's are obligated to address every abnormal behavior by women, even if you might expect them to address this one. I may also have missed an element of your argument that suggests they are evidencing hypocrisy for failing to address it, but I can't imagine how that argument might be made.

It has long been apparent that for a considerable number of PF's, their left-wing ideology trumps their feminism. The most glaring example of this was the slack so many of them cut Bill Clinton. So, I don't at all resist the notion that they can be obvious hypocrites, I just don't see how that would play out with this issue.

I'm inclined to think that your objection here is essentially small potatoes, but I'm certainly open to being persuaded otherwise.

Oh Damn, I missed Bill Clinton????

Sorry Finn, I should have hit reply to all or whatever that function is, the following comments are not directed at you, but for all of the gals who got special attention from Bmilk.

So ladies, someone needs to verify my calculation but so far the tally is:

Glitterbag. Got 16 bitches, maybe 2 **** yous and only maybe 3 old age mentions

Firefly: slightly behind with only 6 Bitches but I think maybe 4 solid variations of **** you, and of course since all women know all the other women, gigged for not immediately recognizing two names little mister fussy butt thinks all women should know. Never heard of them, do I have to surrender my gender and be demoted to a 32 year old angry boy?

Women in general: in separate sentences our gender received 8 bitches, but I forgot to keep track of how many times 'old ass white bitches' was used.

Lash: I think you got one direct Bitch, possibly 2 go **** yourself and we now know know buttermilk is obsessed over white male penises, Good Show

Ossobucco, you did very well, little mister pissy pants couldn't even make sense of the white lady language you were flinging around. ( but we white gals were smart enough to check those terms in the old white broad talk dictionary). Listen boys, that's a scary place, don't go there alone, straight up!! You heard it here first. Ask your grandmothers for Christ's sake.

I'm not sure how to divvy up the tally directed at women in general on the forum, suggestions are welcome from the sisterhood (imagine an elderly women with her withered fist clenched and sticking up straight in the sky. It's old broad power)

I would have to read of BM's tirade again to give out credits to whoever made the Lincoln remark, also I'm not exactly sure, but I always thought of Chutzpah as being Yiddish, not simply Hebrew. But again I'm not a Hebrew linguist, but is was fun to hear additional words for slut. Our sincere thanks to buttermilk, who to his credit, did warn us that if we provoked him again he would go gangsta and vulgar and **** on us. Bravo, you brave young man. Not many men are proud to insult women in such a childishly vulgar fashion, and I know you tried your damnedest. But, you never know, you might do better if you study up and find some other ridiculous non-issue to get outraged over.

But you do lose your **** very quickly, try in the future to hand on a few minutes more, because now, YOU ARE EVERYBODIES BITCH.

One correction, even I'm not old enough to remember James Dean, I doubt men white, black, yellow or pink see Dean as a big bad man. Come on out to D.C., we can introduce you to Saint Marion Berry. Now, that's a survivor.

I am very very very annoyed over comparing some of the bitter and hateful women on this system with the loving and loyalty that are female dogs.

This using the word bitch in a slang manner in regard to these women once more need to be stop at once.

After all none of them are man best friends to say the least.

Oh please, you're just jealous you didn't earn a "bitch"--you only got a
and you only rated a measly one of those.

I'm surprised you aren't complaining about being short-changed and discriminated against because you are a male.

Don't worry, I'm sure most people think of you as Hawkeye's bitch, despite your not receiving your bitch-badge in this thread.

Bill, she's right, you were not even called an old ass white women. That has to sting.

Are you doing this in Excel? How about a graph.

I will give a coherent response in the morning

Firefly you do tend to bring up this website Dungeon Master as often as you can fit his name in for some reason.

Perhaps you are dreaming of being chain to a wall in Hawkeye love dungeon.

Sorry, I was pretty drunk earlier so in order to give you an adequate response I had to get some sleep.. So, to answer your question do I know if any "professional feminists have not commented on it?" It being the OP I assume.

My answer is no, however.....

I'm assuming nobody here is currently in school, and if you are, then I'm sure the climate is different as opposed to mine. I say this because California is liberal, very liberal. So my university tends to become bombarded with many fundamentalist groups "speaking out against something." Unfortunately, there are many professors with agendas, who, bombard their students with nonsensical, misandry because as one professor told a male student in my woman's studies course, "because of patriarchy, men can never be victims."

My issue here is about the education of men and women on personal responsibility because there is too much "well if they do it why can't I do it too?" Even in this Meeks situation, the response I get from my female coworkers is, "well if men do it, why can't we do it too?" This is after I ask them why are you describing him like a grocery list? I find similar attitudes when discussing slavery with whites "well Africa sold slaves too!"--which always gets me even til this day because people forget Africa is a continent, not a country so slavery or even the trading and selling of slaves was not widely practiced....Excuse my non-sequitor

My point is, that academic professionals while educating our youth need to stop creating an atmosphere that women are always victims. There are always sensitivity training FOR MEN advertised at school. It's never FOR EVERYONE it's for men, and those that teach these courses are never men, it's professors that teach at school--who are female. I'm not saying its wrong to NOT tell men they're privileged or that there are antagonist among us, but the message has to come across without alienating an entire group.

I think feminists need to educate women in that rape is not a joke, because the woman who said "Jeremy can rape her vagina" on facebook was not funny and although there are women who do teach that rape is no joke, young women still don't care, at least the ones I know. Because I know if a man said something similar, he'd be admonished. That brings me to another issue we need to discuss double standards because like male privilege, female privilege exist too!

Since you're the one labelling him, and considering him, the "website Dungeon Master", that should help you understand why many people see you as his bitch.

lol people say I was drunk? No idiot prior to my post I said I would give a coherent response ergo, I was drunk. Bitch learn to read

"I will give a coherent response in the morning" means I am ******* tossed for the idiots here. It means upon responding to Abuzz I was drunk

This ain't Abuzz, buttercup.

I think he was referring to my "last name." It's a first.

Damn Finn, he called you an old ass white women? I missed that, that was totally uncalled for.

I couldn't agree with you more that, in what passes as public discourse, there is far too much of the juvenile argument "Well, he/she/they/Bush/Carter/men/women/Democrats/Republicans et al did it!'

Apparently, though, it's irresistible; despite the fact that virtually every person who uses it had to have been told a million times by the person who raised them that "Two wrongs don't make a right!"

Unfortunately there is a popular, though specious, response to the "two wrongs don't make a right" proposition and that is that there aren't actually two wrongs. Only men, or whites, or straights, or the privileged etc. can be wrong. Blacks can't be racists, women can't be sexists, gays can't be bigoted, and the underprivileged can't do anything wrong at all.

For certain African-Americans, this theme is expressed in Critical Race Theory, but I'm sure feminists, "advocates for the poor", LGBT activists, Palestinians, American Indians, and other groups, containing individuals who cling to their victim status, have developed their own bullshit "theory" saying the same thing: Not only is the perennial victim allowed to practice the sort of behavior to which they so strongly object, they're not even doing it when they do it. It's a sort of politically correct magic.

There are of course times when it's appropriate to raise the fact that a certain objectionable behavior occurred in the past, or under different circumstances. For instance the argument that Africans sold slaves is totally irrelevant if the question is, Was the selling of slaves by white Europeans and Americans reprehensible? Obviously it was and the fact that black Africans did it too doesn't change this truth one iota. If the discussion is on the effect of slavery on African-Americans it might be worth noting that most of the slaves shipped from Africa to European colonies or to America were purchased from Africans. Again, it doesn't minimize the effects of institutionalized slavery, but it does present an accurate historical picture. Whether or not this advances the discussion much would be subject to its own debate. But if the topic of the debate/discussion/argument is the inherent evil of the white race as demonstrated by slavery, then it would be entirely appropriate to bring in the fact that Africans (and Asians, and American Indians) bought and sold slaves.

It's also an excellent tool for exposing hypocrisy, but this treads closely to introducing ad hominum into the debate.

In any case, two wrongs don't make a right; no matter what the gender, race, sexual orientation or any other characteristic of one of the wrong-doers, and it is irritating, if not infuriating to see someone suggest otherwise.

To the question "Well if men do it (objective members of the opposite sex), why can't we do it?", the obvious answer is "Well, you can, but then either you don't think it's a big deal when men do it, or you are a hypocrite when you argue men shouldn't do it." Unfortunately, this simple response usually leaves the questioner unfazed, whether or not they subscribe to Critical Race Theory, Critical Gender Theory, Critical Economic Theory, or any other silly theory that excuses conduct by the "victim" that is condemned in the "oppressor"

Personal responsibility, and the extent to which it is valued by our society and taught to our children is a broader topic, and I can easily fill a page or two on that subject, but whether or not college professors should be teaching their students the value of personal responsibility, I agree they shouldn't be providing them pseudo-intellectual excuses for not taking personal responsibility.

It should be possible for accurate information and a wide range of opinion and theory concerning gender dynamics to be objectively conveyed only by women, but I would have to wonder why it was only women doing so and what the implications of the fact might be. This assumes that it is a fact, which I doubt. Having said this I also doubt that having a man teach the subject will result in a less politically correct approach or even less of an underlying assumption that men are the enemy.

To the extent that there is a problem of perspective and focus in such courses it’s not caused by the gender of the instructor, but by their ideology.

Nope. He referred to be as "Abuzz"

He saves "bitch" for special people.

He's special too. But he's losing track of all the identities he's posting under. But I'm happy for him that you are so supportive, when men are being victimized by women it's a good thing when survivors remind them over and over that it's not their fault. And eventually they will meet their own Princess Charming. But you're being a good sport for understanding why he got confused and called you an old ass white women.

You should've taught at USC because as you've exclaimed intelligently minds needs to be open