11
   

Looking for advice. Was I assaulted?

 
 
NSFW (view)
NSFW (view)
firefly
 
  2  
Sun 1 Feb, 2015 01:32 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Yes, i was under the impression it was something more generous, more universal and less narrow minded than a club of rich white women pissed off because you know, that glass ceiling means they can't steal as much money from the system than their rich white husband can.

With your usual perspicacity, Oliver, you have identified the real societal culprits, the morally corrupt, greed motivated group that oppresses, controls, and disadvantages everyone--rich white husbands.

We will never achieve your lofty goal of gender equality--or racial equality--as long as this group of rich white husbands controls the reins of power, economically, socially, and politically--they must go! These corrupt men tanked our entire economy a few years ago with their unbridled greed. And there is no end to the sex scandals they get themselves involved in that embarrass their countries and harm the reputations of average men--just look at Dominique Strauss-Kahn in your country.

It is time to ferment a revolution to put those reins of power into the hands of only middle class gay men of color. Heterosexual white men, particularly those of affluence, cannot be trusted. And, as you've pointed out, women certainly can't be trusted. Look what they've done to the educational system, according to you.

Even though my country has a bi-racial President, he self-identifies as being
African-American, probably to divorce himself from his white heritage, and from being considered as another one of those horrible, grasping, greedy, corrupt white men, and who can blame him? But look at how many people consider him a wimp, probably because of that. He just doesn't project that all-American image of white successful masculinity we associate with ambitious unbridled greed and the often unscrupulous accumulation of wealth. And he's yet to get himself involved in any whisper of a sex scandal, so how much of a real heterosexual white man can he be--obviously less than half? And it is definitely disturbing, and suspicious, that he supports womens' issues. No wonder that the "birthers" question whether he's even American by birth--what all-American he-man would do that?

But, having Obama in office is a good start--being bi-racial, at least he's not a totally white husband. Now we have to work to put mainly men of color in charge of things, preferably gay men because, as you know, those married to women might be unduly influenced by them, and some of those women might hold (shudder) feminist views, or exert their feminine wiles and manipulative tactics to gain advantage for females .

I am so glad you've pointed out the corruption, and moral delinquency, of rich white husbands in positions of power and influence, and how they become unfortunate role models for women. Now we must work to eliminate them from the seats of power and influence, in favor of replacing them with gay men of color. It's obviously the only viable solution.



Olivier5
 
  0  
Sun 1 Feb, 2015 04:11 pm
@firefly,
I'm not interested in yet another 'special interest' lobby. If feminism is just about furthering the interest of the afluent white female, count me out. Change all fortune 500 male CEOs by female ones, and all congressmen by congresswomen, and see if I care.

I used to rout for a different kind of feminism, more generous and less narrow minded, the one that cared for poor women and those from ethnic and religious minorities. The feminism that cared about how well boys were being raised and not just girls, because these boys were sons of women and would tomorrow be the companions of other women's daughters.

A feminism which is apparently sooo dead by now that its mere evocation is deemed absurd by well-informed people such as yourself...

I just lost another illusion. Oh well.
ossobuco
 
  4  
Sun 1 Feb, 2015 04:33 pm
@Olivier5,
I don't get why you are leaving that view of feminism you describe as your recent one, which is mine and many others. It needs keeping.


Olivier5
 
  1  
Sun 1 Feb, 2015 05:27 pm
@ossobuco,
It needed keeping. Now it is deemed 'absurd' by the well-informed, literally unthinkable. It needs resuscitation.

Or not. A couple of thoughts crossed my mind and explain my (apparent) loss of faith. One is that all political or ideological movements have a learning curve, then with any luck comes a few wins, and as a measure of success is established, these movements become 'established' too, part of the establishment. They tend to betray the original cause in that latter part of their trajectory. They tend to forget what the point was. The same thing happened to feminism. When that happens, it's pretty much the end. A new movement takes up the fallen torch and calls it something else.

Take for instance the rise of inequalities in the western world. Piketty's book is all the craze and for the first time in decades of US political history, there is some political resonance in a critique of economic inequality. The 99% movement is tapering off but it was rather new and had political appeal among the very same youth who help elect Obama. How to fight the filthy rich is shaping up as a dominant issue for our times, while feminism has become more 'bourgeois', less attractive.

The second idea is more of a petty semantic issue but... It came when fly made a parallel with racism and the NAACP. I wondered what if that political movement, instead of 'anti-racism', was called 'blackism' (as in 'feminism')... Would I feel attracted to such a movement? Probably not.

I remain attached to gender equality, which is what matters...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 1 Feb, 2015 06:06 pm
@Olivier5,
I believe in equality for all.
0 Replies
 
nononono
 
  0  
Sun 1 Feb, 2015 06:19 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
...Now we must work to eliminate them from the seats of power and influence, in favor of replacing them with gay men of color. It's obviously the only viable solution.


WOW! What a cunty response!
0 Replies
 
nononono
 
  0  
Sun 1 Feb, 2015 06:34 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
A feminism which is apparently sooo dead by now that its mere evocation is deemed absurd by well-informed people such as yourself...


LOL, exactly Oliver! Firefly claims feminism doesn't exist, so why would she need to get angry when people speak ill of it? This thing that doesn't exist anymore Drunk

Quote:
...the one that cared for poor women and those from ethnic and religious minorities.


You mean like in different non-western parts of the world like Africa and the middle east? Because western feminists don't give a damn about women who are actually suffering. Women being sold into sex slavery, or being killed.

No, what western feminists like Jessica Valenti care about are things like "cat-calling" (when a man in public tells a woman to "Have a nice day", because that's the same thing as rape), and other nonsense.

Western feminists could care less how many women are suffering horrible violence overseas, as long as they have their iphones to fiddle around on in their comfortable homes. As long as they maintain female social privilege in the west. And as long as they can scream "Rape!" at the top of their lungs on a whim whenever they choose at the tiniest 'microaggressions'.

Quote:
I remain attached to gender equality, which is what matters...


And so do anti-feminists. And I think you are mistaken about what anti-feminists stand for. I believe that women deserve all the same rights that men have. And in western society they have all those rights and MORE. That's why anti-feminists oppose feminism, because feminism is a supremacist ideology.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Sun 1 Feb, 2015 06:43 pm
@nononono,
Quote:
You mean like in different non-western parts of the world like Africa and the middle east? Because western feminists don't give a damn about women who are actually suffering. Women being sold into sex slavery, or being killed.

Western Feminists have over the last ten years put a lot of energy into stopping sex trafficking, though with poor results. The reason that the french are going are going after French prostitution after a few generations of toleration is that so many of the prostitutes in France these days are imported, often against their will.
0 Replies
 
nononono
 
  0  
Sun 1 Feb, 2015 06:50 pm
@firefly,
firefly said:
Quote:
How about the fact that women are still the primary caregivers for children


nononono said:
Quote:
This is actually a right that women have that men don't. And men (specifically men's rights groups) WANT men to be the primary caregivers for children. But women are just the assumed caregivers and the courts enforce this. And then men are forced out of their children's lives.


nononono said:
Quote:
Women have the right to choose parenthood. If a woman gets pregnant, she alone gets to decide whether the child will live or be aborted. And if she chooses to let it live, she has the right to give it up to the state via 'safe haven' laws. Men on the other hand have ZERO rights to decide what happens with their genetic material after impregnation. If a man doesn't want the woman he impregnated to get an abortion, well he gets no say in it. On the converse side, if the man wants no part in the pregnancy, well the woman has the right to sue him for child support.


http://40.media.tumblr.com/e6339f3ab147f55509a9a1e85c61fab1/tumblr_n9v9reKTiq1s8seg1o1_r1_1280.png
ossobuco
 
  1  
Sun 1 Feb, 2015 06:56 pm
@Olivier5,
I see your point, which I take as the media recorded fems with newsworthyness going off half-cocked (joke, I don't know they're wrong about whatever), and lots of attention going to corporate ceiling problems, and ordinary feminism (include the cares you mentioned) rolling to the wayside.

A new movement coming? I'm swimming in movements around the world.

I see your point that equal rights needs to mean more than equal rights for women, in feminist thought/writings, though I take it that is a directional shift from why the programs were established.
Since I don't follow all that, I don't know the degree that is not paid attention to. I assume that in academia there are forces of thought that don't emphasize that.

I don't know how many students in classes relating to all this are like me or not.
I assume, like many departments, there are divisions.

But wait, what about all women? Not just ones in university departments?




ossobuco
 
  2  
Sun 1 Feb, 2015 06:58 pm
@Olivier5,
I was responding to half your post, back in a while.


edit - Piketty, no news to me.

I can see the idea of equalismo, but a hard sell in some quarters.
I'll be called the new communism.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Sun 1 Feb, 2015 07:21 pm
@Olivier5,
You apparently missed the dripping sarcasm in my previous post...it definitely wasn't about feminism at all, so I don't know why you are harping on feminism again in your response to me.
Quote:
If feminism is just about furthering the interest of the afluent white female, count me out. Change all fortune 500 male CEOs by female ones, and all congressmen by congresswomen, and see if I care.

I used to rout for a different kind of feminism, more generous and less narrow minded, the one that cared for poor women and those from ethnic and religious minorities. The feminism that cared about how well boys were being raised and not just girls, because these boys were sons of women and would tomorrow be the companions of other women's daughters.

Who, other than you, says that feminism is "just about furthering the interest of the affluent white female?" That's totally inaccurate, as I previously pointed out to you, but your mindset is so rigidly fixed it seems incapable of absorbing new or contradicting information.

Regarding caring about poorer women, and minority women, this is N.O.W.'s current position:
Quote:
Issues

NOW is a multi-issue, multi-strategy organization that takes a holistic approach to women’s rights. Our priorities are winning economic equality and securing it with an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will guarantee equal rights for women; championing abortion rights, reproductive freedom and other women’s health issues; opposing racism; fighting bigotry against the LGBT community; and ending violence against women.

Economic Justice

NOW advocates for wide range of economic justice issues affecting women, from the glass ceiling to the sticky floor of poverty. These include welfare reform, livable wages, job discrimination, pay equity, housing, social security and pension reform, and much more.


Racial Justice

NOW condemns the racism that inflicts a double burden of race and sex discrimination on women of color. Seeing human rights as indivisible, we are committed to identifying and fighting against those barriers to equality and justice that are imposed by racism. A leader in the struggle for civil rights since its inception in 1966, NOW is committed to diversifying our movement, and we continue to fight for equal opportunities for women of color in all areas including employment, education and reproductive rights. NOW’s Combatting Racism Committee is working to encourage growth at all levels within NOW of multiracial task forces to combat racism.

http://now.org/issues/


Where is the lack of concern, by N.O.W., for poorer or minority women that you claim exists?

Even though you want feminism to be as concerned with the welfare of little boys as it is with little girls, there is a corresponding men's movement, called Masculism/Masculinism, as incessantly represented in this thread by nononono, and those groups, the male counterparts of feminism, show no concern with the welfare of little girls, their concerns focus on boys and men.

And, unlike N.O.W., which does address issues affecting women of color, and which supports LGBT rights and same sex marriage, this men's movement tends to mainly focus on the concerns of white heterosexual men.
Melissa Blais and Francis Dupuis-Déri. "Masculinism and the Antifeminist Countermovement." Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest 11:1 (2012): 21–39.

So, the complaints you have could be lodged at masculinists as well. So why are you directing them against only the women's groups? Special interest groups are special interest groups.
Quote:
A feminism which is apparently sooo dead by now that its mere evocation is deemed absurd by well-informed people such as yourself...

No matter how many times I tell you I do not view feminism as absurd, you persist in repeating that distortion, apparently willfully and intentionally.

I view feminism as somewhat obsolete and unnecessary now in the U.S., mainly because I think they have largely achieved the goals of second-wave feminism, civil rights issues have been addressed, gender roles have expanded, the issues and concerns have been identified, and women have become more empowered, and assertive, to speak up and speak out, on their own behalf, without a dedicated advocacy movement.

And, right now, I don't think there are galvanizing social gender issues that require feminism to wake people up about them. In other words, I think those earlier feminists did a good job--they got the necessary process of social change started, we now have both male and female activists addressing and speaking out about concerns of women, and now the larger society must continue working to improve things more, and to make sure that previous gains--like abortion rights--are not lost.
Quote:
I'm not interested in yet another 'special interest' lobby.

Then shouldn't you be as equally critical of the Masculism/Masculinism groups, and their male advocacy movement, as you are of feminist groups?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Sun 1 Feb, 2015 07:30 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
I view feminism as somewhat obsolete and unnecessary now in the U.S., mainly because I think they have largely achieved the goals of second-wave feminism, civil rights issues have been addressed, gender roles have expanded, the issues and concerns have been identified, and women have become more empowered, and assertive, to speak up and speak out, on their own behalf, without a dedicated advocacy movement.

I can agree with that. It's largely obsolete and they are more pressing issues.
0 Replies
 
nononono
 
  0  
Sun 1 Feb, 2015 07:34 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
And, unlike N.O.W., which does address issues affecting...


nononono said:
Quote:
N.O.W. continues actively opposing equal custody between mothers and fathers in spite of conclusive research that this is best for children in a divorce. I don't believe that the claim that they care about the rights of men and children is true.


This is 100% true Max. And Karen DeCrow, who was the president of N.O.W. from 1974 to 1977 was bullied and forced out of N.O.W. because she advocated for fathers rights in child custody, and advocated for men to have more choice in becoming a parent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_DeCrow

N.O.W. is essentially a mouth piece for feminist bigotry, and anyone who wants equal rights for men is forced out or not allowed in. I might add that Warren Farrell was also on the board of directors at N.O.W. until he was forced out because he started advocating for father's rights.

"Everything went well until the mid-seventies when NOW came out against the presumption of joint custody [of children following divorces]. I couldn't believe the people I thought were pioneers in equality were saying that women should have the first option to have children or not to have children—that children should not have equal rights to their dad" ~Warren Farrell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell


http://able2know.org/topic/262626-15#post-5878470

Quote:
Then shouldn't you be as equally critical of the Masculism/Masculinism groups, and their male advocacy movement, as you are of feminist groups?


By "masculinists" (lol, ridiculous term that no one uses), I'm assuming you're referring to men's rights groups.

Men's rights group take action all over the world and focus on men of all races, sexual orientation, etc.

Quote:
this men's movement tends to mainly focus on the concerns of white heterosexual men.


BULLSHIT! Paul Elam specifically translates A Voice For men into a multitude of different languages to be viewed throughout the world. And AVFM has done fundraisers for all kinds of different issues affecting men of all races.


N.O.W. is a hate organization that wants to take children away from their fathers.


Try again you liar...
Olivier5
 
  1  
Sun 1 Feb, 2015 07:45 pm
@ossobuco,
Quote:
But wait, what about all women? Not just ones in university departments?

The discussion started from an article showing some disaffection for feminism among US women.
0 Replies
 
nononono
 
  0  
Sun 1 Feb, 2015 08:00 pm
@nononono,
Quote:
By "masculinists" (lol, ridiculous term that no one uses), I'm assuming you're referring to men's rights groups.


And the reason men's rights advocates don't use the ridiculous term "masculinists", is because it would infer by the word itself that the male gender is somehow superior to the female gender. Just like how the word "feminist" infers that women are superior to men.

And that's not what men's rights are about. Men's rights activists want equal treatment for both genders, and that includes women being held to the same level of responsibility/accountability as men are.
0 Replies
 
nononono
 
  0  
Sun 1 Feb, 2015 08:29 pm
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Sun 1 Feb, 2015 08:40 pm
@nononono,
You really are a shmuck.

I post N.O.W.'s current positions and you respond by citing intra-organizational disagreements and positions within N.O.W. from the 1970's--that's 40 years ago. You are aware it's 2015, aren't you?

I'm not aware that the national N.O.W. has any current position on child custody. I've been searching, and cannot find one. If you can find it, post it, with a link. Otherwise shut up about it, because it will mean you don't know what you are talking about.

In 2006, the NY chapter of N.O.W. opposed a specific joint custody bill pending in NYS because of specific objections to that specific bill--and I posted a link to their statement about that bill earlier in this thread in a reply to Max. They made it clear they had no objection, at all, to shared parenting, but they felt custody issues had to be decided on an individual basis, on the basis of the best interests for particular children. For instance, if one parent, including the mother, had an addiction problem, joint custody might not be best for the child. They generally felt that the least disruption for a child was for the primary caregiver before the divorce to continue to be the primary caregiver after the divorce, and that makes sense, but that doesn't preclude shared parenting and having the other parent involved in the child's life.

But that was only the NY chapter, and it was in reference to a specific bill that was pending.
Quote:
N.O.W. is a hate organization that wants to take children away from their fathers.

You are really off the wall.
Quote:
the word "feminist" infers that women are superior to men

You need to invest in a dictionary, that's not what the word means or infers. But, if you feel women are superior to men, I'm not going to try to dissuade you from that notion. Laughing

Quote:
Men's rights group take action all over the world and focus on men of all races, sexual orientation, etc.

A gay man visiting the A Voice for Men Web site would have a hard time finding or seeing any support for gay issues and same sex marriage and any strong opposition to societal discrimination against gays. It pretty exclusively focuses on concerns of heterosexual men, with an anti-feminist focus.

I thought you were leaving A2K, and would only drop in occasionally in the future. You can't be believed about anything. Laughing




 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/18/2022 at 05:38:59