I'm A Colluder!
Well, kind of. According to this feminist blogger, Womanist Musings:
A colluder is a woman that disavows feminism for men's rights.
Actually, what I am first and foremost is a grammarian. That would be a woman WHO...etc.
She goes on about what "colluders" are:
They feel that feminism has reached all of its goals, and that the women that are complaining today aren't interested in equality...oh no, we are interested in ruling men. Since females in roles of power are counter gender norms, this simply cannot be tolerated.
Huh? Once more in English?
I'm not "for" the men's movement particularly. What I am is somebody who's for equal rights for all, not special rights under the guise of equal rights. I also really, really dislike victimism and whining.
Okay, so lujlp leaves a comment about his problem with feminism on the site:
You want to know why people assume feminisim has a vigina centered hive mentality?http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_011108.html
Because a the leader of a NOW chapter accused all men who did not vote for Clinton of being gang rapists.
She accused my little brothers, 17, 14, & 12 of being gang rapists when they were brought up t do what feminists claim they wanted - to treat the girls in thier class the same as they treat they guys.
And what was the response to this nutjob's psychotic rant? Nary a word of objection.
Your fathers, your brothers, your children, labeld as RAPISTS becuse they didnt vote they way this woman felt they should or becuse they act like children when they are in fact children.
And not a word of protest to be seen from other feminist leaders.
One of the wymyn responds:
Okay now I am irritated... 1) It is spelled VAGINA and I love mine 2) Clearly you are here to work your agenda and don't give a rats ass about what I am actually saying. This conversation is about fissures in feminism and the fact that there are different kinds of feminist theory and you give me they called me a rapist.
What lujlp said was interesting, and fact-based. The Womanist Musings blog post, besides the silliness at the beginning, was a total bore. Yes, there are many different shades of being a whining victim and speaking in that incomprehensible "post-structuralist" lingo and all that. Almost all of them about special treatment under the guise of equal treatment. Life is rough. For everyone. Try being a man in a custody battle, for example.
If you're against discrimination and injustice, you're against discrimination and injustice of all kinds. And you don't create discrimination and foment hate, just as long as the discriminatee has a penis, which is what feminism tends to do.
The comment I left on the site:
I'm against feminism because I'm against discrimination against men or anyone, and feminism is, far too often, a big whine for special treatment under the guise of equal treatment. It's also, very often, a cover for man-hating; for example, Diana Russell's contention that "a considerable amount of marital sex is probably closer to the rape end of the continuum."If you're a lesbian, fine. If you're going to paint heterosexual sex as a criminal act by a man most of the time, you're scum, and anybody who's for justice, fairness and equality, should stand up against you.
Wait: Do we hear even a squeak against Diana Russell from the feminists? The feminists of color, the Wite-Out-colored feminists? Anybody?
Nope. Because feminism is about promoting injustice not stopping it. Which is why I'm a proud "colluder."
(How ridiculous!)
(Thanks, lujlp. I needed that.)
And I love, at that link lujlp included, this bit:
Uh, Britney Spears is exploited? Sorry, but isn't she the EXPLOITER? Of those kids?
Luckily, Kevin Federline's there to pick up after her:
http://theblemish.com/2007/03/kevin-federline-is-a-good-father/
Amy Alkon at June 17, 2008 8:01 AM
At least he talks the right talk. Can't know what goes on behind closed doors, but the guy sounds like he's doing his best to give those kids some stability and a good life:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21982234/
Amy Alkon at June 17, 2008 8:02 AM
Amy, I just went to that website, and didn't see your comment, although I saw both of lujlp's. I'm wondering if the blog owner will even put yours up; it makes too much sense! o_O
Flynne at June 17, 2008 8:03 AM
Thanks, Flynne. Just left it. We'll see if she approves it.
Amy Alkon at June 17, 2008 8:05 AM
I only censor for extreme racism, misogyny, abelism, or homophobia. Idiocy needs no censorship. I will respond later. Have a great day!
Renee at June 17, 2008 8:33 AM
"Abelism"? I have to pass that one on to my friend John Callahan, the quadriplegic cartoonist, who will throw up while laughing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableism
Ableism is a neologism of American coinage, since about 1981[citation needed]. It is used to describe discrimination against people with disabilities in favor of people who are not disabled.
An ableist society is said to be one that treats non-disabled individuals as the standard of ‘normal living’, which results in public and private places and services, education, and social work that are built to serve 'standard' people, thereby inherently excluding those with various disabilities.
Wait. I have ADHD. Does this mean that all boring public affairs shows and speakers who are dull are discriminating against me? They should have monkeys and a funny PowerPoint to accommodate me?
Lady, what do you do when you're not whining about how victimized everybody is?
Amy Alkon at June 17, 2008 8:43 AM
Of course, Renee will will respond "later." She has to do some research first, find some good catch phrases to rip off of the NOW site and regurgitate.
"Have a nice day."
Aren't you clever?
andrew'shotwife at June 17, 2008 8:52 AM
"...great day!" Sorry.
andrew'shotwife at June 17, 2008 8:57 AM
Heh. It's a good thing for her, then, that "idiocy needs no censorship."
Flynne at June 17, 2008 9:14 AM
I tried to read a bit of that blog, and now I have a headache. I don't know many people who fit into the narrow category (white, male, heterosexual, protestant) that are never discriminated against. And I don't hear most of us whining about it.
Darry at June 17, 2008 9:28 AM
White, heterosexual, Protestant males are discriminated against by our courts in child custody cases and by affirmative action programs and fellowships and internships only available to people "of color." Just for starters.
Amy Alkon at June 17, 2008 9:34 AM
What you may ask, is a colluder.
According to Merriam-Webster, collusion means “secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose.”
According to Wikipedia, “Collusion is an agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically involving fraud or gaining an unfair advantage. . . .”
So, in the same post, the author says those who disagree with feminism are deceitful and scheming to gain an unfair advantage, but that feminism embraces diversity of thought and opinion.
A colluder is a woman that disavows feminism for men's rights.
In Renee’s more “diverse” feminism, it’s still men vs. women.
In her objection to luljp’s comment, she was offended that her children were used to make a point, but not that her brothers and father were used.
Perhaps if more people where [sic] to understand the diversity of feminism. . . .
". . . people where to understand . . . ." Looks like luljp’s not the only one with spelling issues. Take heart, though, at least Renee knows how to spell vagina.
The people that most need to understand the diversity of women and the ability of women to think for themselves are the feminists.
Renee doesn’t really want non-feminists to understand there are differences in feminism. She wants the leaders of the feminist monolith to convert to and promote her brand of feminism (womanism). She’s tired of the “white suburban, mini van driving, soccer mom” or the [white] “urban 20 something New York socialite” being the face of feminism.
Renee wants the monolithic feminism to continue. She just wants it to look and think more like she does.
Conan the Grammarian at June 17, 2008 9:53 AM
Amy they call you colluder because like you are actually walking the walk that they are talking the talk about.
I left a comment over there (a reply to another comment actually) but since there is moderation I doubt it will get posted. So here it is:
I am really tired of people ( a suprising number of them women) talking about poor, mistreated men and misanthropy etc etc. I've yet to EVER see a man afraid to walk to his car, or walk the dog, because he might be attacked. Groups of young women walking dow the street don't cause people to cross the road or duck into stores just to avoid them, people do that all the time to avoid large groups of young men. Why? One is dangerous, the other is not.
You're only tired of it because you're afraid to admit there is some truth to it. I know its hard to realize that men don't have all the cards dealt to them from the get go.
Until we have 51% of Congress, and 51% of the executives in large companies, and every-other President, and 51% of law enforcement, the women's movement is not over. We are the majority of the population, why are we the minority (tiny, tiny minority) of the positions of power? Because men set up the systems and still run them.
Why do people mistake lack of equal opportunity for lack of mixed results? Now if you wanted to make that argument valid you would have pointed out that until women have the same opportunities as men to become law enforcement, CEOs, goverment official, then the women's movement is not over.
This democratic primary campaign is a rerun of the suffrage movement. Women were told to take a back-burner, we need to help black men first. Hillary had the majority of the popular vote (yes, that means MORE people total voted for her than Obama) but because the party leaders decided a black man was more important, he won.
I agree that the electorial college is jacked up but that fact that Obama had the lead in delegates and superdelegates mean nothing to you when it comes to "smashing the patriarchy" right? If the situation was reversed and Clinton got the nod depsite Obama having the lead in popular vote would you still be as upset?
Like Amy Alkon says I want a good competent president. If its a white woman fine. If its an asian man fine. But of course having young girls see women win elections based on their gender alone is a fine way to teach them anything is possible right?
Danny at June 17, 2008 9:56 AM
A colluder is a woman that disavows feminism for men's rights.
I'm really not sure what that means or implies. For a start I'm not sure what "men's rights" are. Can anyone give some examples of rights that are for men only? Using the men's room - nope, boys can do that. Driving - nope, women can do that. Marrying women is one, I suppose. Fathering children is a biological capability, not a legal right.
Second, I can't think of any men's rights that are against women. Can anyone help me out here?
You can see why I don't really understand this definition.
Still, I'm for the original feminism - you know, treating people as individuals, not as members of any particular groups.
Norman at June 17, 2008 10:04 AM
Can anyone give some examples of rights that are for men only? . . . Marrying women is one, I suppose.
Not anymore.
What you may ask, is a colluder.
Don't questions usually end with question marks?
Conan the Grammarian at June 17, 2008 10:07 AM
Still, I'm for the original feminism - you know, treating people as individuals, not as members of any particular groups.
Me, too. As for the Martin Luther King thing, judging people "by the content of their character."
I do laugh at how that woman above wrote about her vagina...kind of like it's a pet. (I'm tempted to go stick some of those little plastic eyes on mine and take pictures. Lucy, meet Pussy!)
Amy Alkon at June 17, 2008 10:09 AM
Groups of young women walking dow (sic) the street don't cause people to cross the road or duck into stores just to avoid them, people do that all the time to avoid large groups of young men. Why? One is dangerous, the other is not.
Obviously this woman never lived in an inner city ghetto area. And she must not have heard about the gang of girls in Florida who beat up another girl.
http://notebook.mercedsunstar.com/node/558/print
Flynne at June 17, 2008 10:14 AM
To be fair she hasnt blocked any of my posts on her blog yet
In her objection to luljp’s comment, she was offended that her children were used to make a point, but not that her brothers and father were used.
-Connan
Did you notice that while she objected to me using them as examples she didnt object to a feminit calling them rapists?
lujlp at June 17, 2008 10:15 AM
What you have to remember is that feminism is an INDUSTRY, not a movement. It exists to provide jobs and meaning for women's studies graduates and lobbyists (aka feminist writers and bloggers).
Just like any other industry, they lobby and campaign for special benefits for their industry.
See the CEO of a steel company in Washington begging for import quotas to protect his inefficient company? Renee wants the same thing, only for her friends.
Gordon at June 17, 2008 10:18 AM
Groups of young women walking dow the street don't cause people to cross the road or duck into stores just to avoid them, people do that all the time to avoid large groups of young men. Why? One is dangerous, the other is not.
Generally true, but so what? I'd avoid a group of wild animals, but that's not because of "animal rights." Men don't have the right to attack people. Women, on the other hand, often do:
Professor John Archer, an expert on both male and female aggression, who carried out the study, attracted huge controversy with a report five years ago showing that women were likely to lash out more frequently than men during rows. He says that battered men are treated as figures of fun by society and that policymakers must treat domestic abuse against both men and women with equal seriousness. (my emphasis) full article
That is, it is a matter of policy not to treat domestic abuse against men as seriously as against women. It's actual policy, folks!
Norman at June 17, 2008 10:30 AM
Heres a thought.
How can you be a colluder when you are open about your loyalties and the 'side' you are in agreement with is neither hidden, illegal, or fruadulent?
lujlp at June 17, 2008 12:05 PM
Well appearantly I didn't pass their litmus test because low and behold my comment didn't show up after a few hours. Oh well.
Danny at June 17, 2008 12:25 PM
Amy and everybody else,
Just a heads up. I belive you are feeding a troll. This woman showed up on another site I go to. She likes to come into a room, pick a fight, everybody responds, then she pops back in to post the link to HER response to their responses. I imagine the idea is that everybody will go over there to read her inarticulate and completely unoriginal ideas, thus increasing traffic on her site.I'm frankly surprised, Amy, that she has yet to accuse you of shared responsibility for "breast ironing" or "female genital mutilation." Its not more than one or two exchanges away.
I make it a point of noting that I have won the argument when a feminist resorts to pointing out the oppression of women in other countries to legitimize their position.
WolfmanMac at June 17, 2008 12:36 PM
I was just a kid in the 70's when all the wrong women were burning their bras. But that leaves me with a couple of thoughts:
To quote the late Richard Jeni, 'For two centuries in this country, there was nothing better than being a white guy with a little money in the bank, then I come along and BAM it's over.' Just as an example, go fill out an application for a small business loan. Minority? no. Woman owned business? no. White guy? yes. Why would a white guy need to borrow money? (well at least that's what it seems like;-)
On the otherhand, this current generation of NOW pants suit burners are making it easier for men to get custody of their children. And also to collect 'Manimony'. CBS morning show gals were whining about this yesterday, specifically the little ditzy prom queen one. "It doesn't seem fair, but I guess we asked for it."
Be careful what you ask for feminists. And when you do get it, by all means, please enjoy sucking on it.
So your walking down Santa Monica Blvd. Bloods and Crips are gangbanging on one side of the street. NOW protesters on the other side of the street. Hmm. I think I'd take my chances in traffic.
Sterling at June 17, 2008 12:47 PM
From Rush Limbaugh's Undeniable Truths of Life:
brian at June 17, 2008 12:47 PM
"Groups of young women walking dow the street don't cause people to cross the road or duck into stores just to avoid them, people do that all the time to avoid large groups of young men. Why? One is dangerous, the other is not."
Oh boy. Can anyone see the male perspective on this one? Even an individual male is often seen as a potential attacker if he's a stranger. Do you think most men actually enjoy being seen as a potential attacker by a woman that doesn't know them? I hate it, as do several other men I've spoken to.
An extreme example of this would be the way black men felt in the Old South during the Jim Crow era, though that's admittedly stretching things. But one wouldn't speak of the suspicious reactions of the white southerners as an example of "black privilege."
MIOnline at June 17, 2008 12:48 PM
I AM SHOCKED!! All this time I had NO idea that I've been getting "metaphorically" gang raped. I feel metaphorically violated. I must join NOW immediately so I have someone to hear my boo hoos.
DubD at June 17, 2008 12:51 PM
Thank you for being a humanitarian rather than a "WOMANitarian". All too often the later lurks and predominates in our legislatures, courts, media etc.
Kilgore at June 17, 2008 2:00 PM
Oh boy. Can anyone see the male perspective on this one? Even an individual male is often seen as a potential attacker if he's a stranger. Do you think most men actually enjoy being seen as a potential attacker by a woman that doesn't know them? I hate it, as do several other men I've spoken to.
What I find to be very funny here is that she is not just pointing out the fear that women have of random men (which is real I believe) but then she goes on to act as if that fear is the fault of those random men.
Isn't is amazing that feminists will call men's fear of false rape accusations and being labeled a pedophile for merely talking to a child irrational but a woman's fear of a group of random guys is perfectly rational?
Danny at June 17, 2008 2:01 PM
You're welcome. It's just the right thing to do for anybody who believes in justice.
Personally, if I see somebody who looks like they're bigger and stronger than I am and/or who looks like they may be armed, I cross the street. This goes for thuggy looking girls and thuggy looking guys. Women who think they're in the clear just because the person walking down the dark alley behind them doesn't have a penis are idiots.
Amy Alkon at June 17, 2008 2:07 PM
Not just that, but feminists conveniently disregard a few other things-
If those young men hurt you, who ya gonna call to hunt them down and imprison them? Men. Who will be all too happy to do it? Men. Who locks up those men who do evil of any kind (including, I might add, those guilty of the rapidly expanding definition of evil, courtesy of feminists)? Men. Who was promoting (and still promotes) women learning self defense, arming and training themselves in the use of handguns? Men. Hell, Smith and Wesson even came out with a whole line of handguns for women - while the NOW crowd yowled like scalded cats and pushed for gun control.
I could go on, and on, and tediously on stating the obvious, but you get the point.
Amy, I should thank you as well. After receiving a smack down at the hands of gender feminism that will quite literally leave a permanent scar on my life, I was ready to say (if I ever saw a woman who needed my help) - "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" and continue merrily on my way.
Women like you and Wendy Mcelroy did a lot to fix that. My gratitude is yours.
WolfmanMac at June 17, 2008 2:37 PM
IMHO, any woman who hasn't seen a man in fear of being attacked by other men hasn't been around many men outside of an office, and if she hasn't been in fear of a woman, she hasn't worked as a bartender.
I saw first-hand that women will smash a glass into someone's head where a guy would just punch you in the nose. My theory? Smaller critters need to be much more violent to survive mutual combat.
Where's this woman living, in an isolation booth?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 17, 2008 3:24 PM
Late to the party on this one, but I thought I'd post one of the more intelligent things that I picked up in college. One of my professors said that "Equality isn't what we should strive for." He made the argument that what we really should want is EQUITY. [American Heritage dictionary says that equity is the state, ideal, or quality of being just, impartial, and fair.]. What that means is that we should recognize that different groups have different skills and traits. And that's a good thing. We shouldn't strive to have 50% of all firefighters and police officers be female, because quite frankly, men are better suited to the job. Just like we shouldn't have to shoehorn legions of men into becoming interior decorators or nurses: women are better suited towards those jobs.
[Note: I realize that these are generalizations. There are women who are awesome at firefighting, and there are men who are excellent nurses. Please forgive me if you are one of these.]
The point is, rather, that we should encourage people to excel at their strengths, rather than lower the standards to meet their weaknesses. Equity would mean that everyone gets a fair shot at it; no special rules for anyone.
Amy is always commenting on the false "need" to get women into the hard sciences, which seems to be driven primarily to see prettier statistics, and wanting quantity over quality. The fact of the matter is that women don't prefer the hard sciences, they gravitate towards psychology/psychiatry and the medical field. Saying that we "need" women in these professions is silly. The important thing is that we're not turning them away when they're interested and if they meet the qualifications. The same impartial and fair view given to a male candidate should be given to the female - no exceptions.
Sorry if that's kinda long-winded; I felt like I was having trouble explaining. It's something that's always seemed to make a lot of sense to me.
CornerDemon at June 17, 2008 4:26 PM
CornerDemon,
I agree with what you have to say and think most fair minded people would. The problem is, the Galiban has an answer for that too - "Comparable Worth."
Yes, those fun lovin' totalitarians want the government to decree that career fields staffed overwhelmingly by women (like social work, counseling, etc.) recieve comparable pay to say, a pipefitter working on the Alaska pipeline. The "logic" is that these jobs form the "pink ghetto" - they aren't paid less than the pipefitter because they are less physical, less dangerous, less unpleasant, have better working hours and environment with more benefits - no, they are paid less because they are staffed overwhelmingly by women.
If, they say, men occupied more of those professions and more women worked on the pipeline, we would pay the pipefitter less and the social worker more - because work women do is "undervalued" in society. Just another devious plot we of the patriarchy cooked up in our secret cave with the giant laser.
WolfmanMac at June 17, 2008 5:10 PM
mathgeek
Abelism is a tremendous injustice. Members of non-Abelian groups experience inequality instead of enjoying a normal commute. We must correct this! Free SUVs for non-Abelian groups now!
/mathgeek
--
phunctor
phunctor at June 17, 2008 5:56 PM
A colluder is a woman that disavows feminism for men's rights.
Amy this post of yours make clear that you are a super indicting super colluder.
/physics joke?
jerry at June 17, 2008 7:03 PM
Wolfman, you weren't supposed to tell people about the giant laser. Now I'm going to have to change the agenda of the next Patriarchs' Conference to spin control.
Thomas Fullery at June 17, 2008 7:07 PM
Hey tom we at the WWWTSTBA sub committee are looking for new projects, any ideas?
lujlp at June 17, 2008 7:53 PM
Popping in to make you aware that I have posted a response.
http://www.womanist-musings.com/2008/06/amy-alkon-self-professed-colluder.html
Renee at June 17, 2008 9:03 PM
I did the whole "guilt thing" in my twenties:
- Guilt for being born white
- Guilt for being a male
- Guilt for being born in a prosperous country
- Guilt for going to university
Guilt. Guilt. Guilt. I went out of my way to be the most exceptional S.N.A.G. (Sensitive New Age Guy) women had ever seen. The ones I mostly met said that what they wanted.
But I wasn't happy. Not even close.
Nowadays, I'm the furthest thing from a caveman but I refuse to feel guilty about everything I say and do.
One strange thing I've noticed is that those women who proclaim to be feminists the most generally can't talk for more than a few minutes before direct hatred towards men spills out. As for equality, they don't want it. They want POWER, pure & simple.
Robert W. at June 17, 2008 11:30 PM
Oh God, I just read ... well, tried to read some of Renee's diatribes. I thought only government bureaucrats trying to confuse the subject wrote like that. Yikes!
Dear Renee, I noticed that besides being a humanist, a pacifist, and an anti-racist, you're also a fellow Canadian. Would you care to share your great wisdom on the recent "human rights" case against Maclean's magazine and indirectly, Mark Steyn? Either here or on your own blog would be lovely. Please don't hesitate to notify me when you do.
P.S. I also noticed that you referred to "Amy Alkon and her ilk". By "ilk" do you mean "loyal readers of hers" or "racist white people [a term you seem to use a lot]" or something else?
One day you might just have a revelation that not everybody in this world is going to agree with you. That doesn't automatically make them wrong. Nor does it make them racists. Nor does it mean that they hate women. Nor does it mean that they're not as enlightened as you. It might just mean that they're different from you and that difference is what makes the patchwork quilt of both Canada and the United States the most beautiful in the world.
The day you experience such a revelation is the day you know you'll finally be free of your Permanent Victim Syndrome. Let's hope it happens soon!
Robert W. at June 17, 2008 11:50 PM
There's some slow-running script on her blog that makes it really hard to comment. Nevertheless, I left a comment -- just about a few points (this isn't a woman who's got the stuff to be worth arguing with):
Amy Alkon at June 18, 2008 12:16 AM
I've just got to laugh at being painted as...ha ha ha...a homophobe. Lifelong fag hag and gay rights promoter, assistant's a lesbian, as are a few of my friends and acquaintances...I believe I called my assistant, thrilled, when I heard about gay marriage in California -- or maybe I e-mailed her...she later told me she loved my blog item on gay marriage:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/05/15/sudden_equal_ri.html
No, sorry, lydy or wymyn, or whatever you have to post-structurally, post-comprehensively call yourself, I just despise people who are for special rights under the guise of equal rights which most feminists are. Whether they're gay or straight, if they're for that sort of thing, I'm against them.
There are others -- met one recently at an university science conference who's more along the lines of Wendy McElroy, Christina Hoff Sommers, Cathy Young, and me. She's a university prof who has to keep her mouth shut about her true views, because there's nobody more fascistic at the academy about what the "correct"-think is than the feminists.
Amy Alkon at June 18, 2008 12:26 AM
I was hanging out with a bunch of guys in their 20's from Brazil the other day, showing them around town. Good times. Been a while since I hung out with a bunch of guys. They would pick me up and toss me around like a ball. Then later on my female friend (rich husband, fake boobs) and I spent the night talking about fashion and models. I was telling her about Hilary Rhoda and how I'm trying to get her autograph.
The good life is recognizing that each sex has faults but not making that the center of your life.
Purplepen at June 18, 2008 12:52 AM
While all these post-structuralist wymynists are whipping up a spectre of Western patriachy in order to justify their pseudo-intellectual existence, women in Muslim countries are suffering under sharia law - real patriarchy with a capital I for Islam.
Do the wymynists ever attack, even criticise, that patriachy? Not on your life. They are too busy hysterically conjuring phantom rapists, which only devalues the suffering of real rape victims. You're right. The wymynists are tiresome in the extreme.
lizzylights at June 18, 2008 3:48 AM
Curiously, Lizzylights, they don't attack or even criticise that patriarchy. Except to use it as a club over the head of Western men, who are dying in a war ( however misguided it may or may not be) against that system.
I see a pattern here....
WolfmanMac at June 18, 2008 4:37 AM
BTW, I noticed she informed us of a response with a link to HER site. Who coulda seen that comin'...
WolfmanMac at June 18, 2008 5:22 AM
I just tried to read her article as well, and it's full of all kinds of mis-direction. She was raggin' on lujlp because he "couldn't spell vagine"!! To wit: Notice no commentary is made on Luljp's misspelling of vagina. You may posses one, however it is clearly not important to you that they are respected, or that the word is even spelled properly for that matter. I wish that I could report that this is all that you have evidenced a lack of respect for.
Apparently, to her, if you don't spell correctly, you aren't to be taken seriously. Sorry lujlp, I love ya, but I can't take you seriously until you learn how to spell!
Then, there's this: Do I really need to quote myself. "My feminism speaks to who I am as a person, it speaks to my needs, and desires, and it is certainly not representative of women at large." Just a few more moments of patience, while I break it down for the kool aid sippers. The idea is that feminism should open itself up to a diversity of voices so that the various lived experiences of women may be reified. Despite your scurrilous attempt to misrepresent me, I stand fast to the idea that a more inclusive feminism that disavows the concept of a monolithic woman, means a more open debate. On a short aside, If you are trying to impress me with your ability to research, you should probably not reference a site ( Wikki) that any idiot can edit at anytime.
Amy, when did you make an attempt to misrepresent her? Did I miss that? Please, do enlighten me. Oooops, we're idiots again!
Obviously, you struck a nerve: I actually lead quite a full life, and I will not arrange my schedule to suite your whims. Sorry that you had to wait, but patience is something people usually acquire in childhood. As for me running to NOW to plagiarize, clearly you have difficulty with reading comprehension. The name of the blog is WOMANIST MUSINGS, which would necessarily indicate that I hold an opposite theoretical position to the women that run NOW. Your knowledge of feminist theory is overwhelming, as evidenced by the following, "Yes, there are many different shades of being a whining victim and speaking in that incomprehensible "post-structuralist" lingo and all that. Nothing about my post was remotely post structural. "There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender... Identity is performatively constituted by the very 'expressions' that are said to be its results." Now that is post structural theory courtesy of Judith Butler, but if you cannot comprehend the writing on this blog, Judith Butler would obviously be out of your league.
Poor misunderstood thing! o_O
Then she goes on to say: You throw catch words around like, equality and justice. You profess to believe that men and women are equal. Where exactly do you think the concept of gender equality came from in the first place? Could those possibly be the organizing principles of Liberal Feminism? But you are not a feminist right? All feminist think exactly the same way. There is no difference between your inane vitriolic rants, and those issued by the Ferraro/ Steinem crowd.
Oh and by the way, Amy, As for the trolls in your commentary section, when I get around to it, if I can find even one rationale comment I will respond.
I love being a troll, don't you? /sarcasm
Flynne at June 18, 2008 6:13 AM
Oopsie! I just misspelled "vagina" too! Don't take me seriously, anyone! Seriously. o_O
Flynne at June 18, 2008 6:22 AM
When I was a freshman in highschool I was swimming outside in the Uinta mountains around Febuary when a snowstorm rolled out of the higher Rockies
By the time I got out of the water my skin was purple, two and a half days later it was transitioning from corpse grey back to pink.
My point? Seems I damaged my hypothaulmus as ever since my body temp has been a flat 96 degrees and I have no comprehensible sleep pattern. I'll go on a regular pattern for a while, and then go 5 or six days with out sleep. Talked to a specialist and found it wasnt just insomnia, but as a result I always feel slightly fatuiged.
And as a result of that fatiuge I occasionsly mispeell words, become temporarily dyslexic, and occasionally will spit out a sentanc where I'll jumble the order of the words. You aught to see the look on peoples faces when I do that one verbally
Life is short and if I misspell the occasional word or two that means I caught something that would really have had you people scratching your heads in bewliderment
lujlp at June 18, 2008 6:54 AM
Renee is nothing but an attention whore. If she wrote anything useful, she would be able to get an audience without all the advertising.
KellyMac at June 18, 2008 6:59 AM
I didn't comment on all her remarks because she's unimportant, not very smart, and ridiculous. I have to laugh at stuff like this:
I actually lead quite a full life, and I will not arrange my schedule to suite your whims. Sorry that you had to wait, but patience is something people usually acquire in childhood.
I'm not sure whether the woman is just butt dumb or completely dishonest. The above silliness is a response to a comment I didn't make. She starts off with a few comments of mine, and then starts going on to others' comments without identifying them.
I just love the notion that there'd be something good about reading Judith Butler. I read people who have value, from Aristotle on, and not those who must speak in code (see The Sokol Hoax) because they're actually saying nothing of value. If you read the people this nitwit values, I think you'll see that they are largely incoherent.
Amy Alkon at June 18, 2008 7:09 AM
Lujlp, honey, I don't really give a flying fuck about your spelling, I can usually get the gist of your meaning. I was just being pissy because Renee was implying that you lack credibility if you can't spell. She's a twit, and I agree with KellyMac's assessment of her.
Flynne at June 18, 2008 7:13 AM
One more thing:
The name of the blog is WOMANIST MUSINGS, which would necessarily indicate that I hold an opposite theoretical position to the women that run NOW.
Oh...we know this how?
See, you don't learn to be a clear thinker and writer from studying all the bullshit feminist writers who speak in code. Honey, check out Aristotle and Albert Ellis. Reason is a powerful tool.
And lujlp's spelling idiosyncrasies are charming, especially since his thinking is sharp. Also, he's a blog commenter; he's not writing a blog. There's a difference. If you're a blogger, grammar and syntax and spelling errors are a problem.
Amy Alkon at June 18, 2008 7:21 AM
It is quite obvious to me now that very few have actually read my whole post. I pointed out lujps incorrect spelling of vagina because Amy pointed out my grammar mistake yet didn't comment on that one. Why? Because they mirror her commentary.
Oh twister of words you are Amy, I never implied that lujps lacked credibility.
Wolfmanmac said BTW, I noticed she informed us of a response with a link to HER site. Who coulda seen that comin'...
Unfortunately for you sweetie, I am not a passive woman. If someone attacks me, I will always respond. The days of publicly flagellating women without response are over.
Amy said See, you don't learn to be a clear thinker and writer from studying all the bullshit feminist writers who speak in code. Honey, check out Aristotle and Albert Ellis. Reason is a powerful tool.
Oh great dick worshiper!! Of course you point out Aristotle, woman hating man that he was known to be. How do you spend your time when you are not worshiping at the temple of phalus?
lizzylights said
While all these post-structuralist wymynists are whipping up a spectre of Western patriachy in order to justify their pseudo-intellectual existence, women in Muslim countries are suffering under sharia law - real patriarchy with a capital I for Islam.
Do the wymynists ever attack, even criticise, that patriachy? Not on your life. They are too busy hysterically conjuring phantom rapists, which only devalues the suffering of real rape victims. You're right. The wymynists are tiresome in the extreme.
Just another example of someone commenting on something they haven't researched. lizzy, had you taken the time to read my blog you would have noticed that I have commented on the sufferings of women in Muslim countries.
Renee at June 18, 2008 9:05 AM
Just a shot in the dark here, but I have a feeling her comment about no posters on here having anything to say worth responding to is supposed to make me purple with rage, and run right over to her site to show her a thing or two.
The only really remarkable thing about "feminist theory" is that so many legislators fall for such crass manipulation -which says more about legislators than it does about feminism.
But here's the problem darling - I'm not a legislator. If you want attention for your blog, get it on your merits. If you aren't getting enough attention on your blog, check your premises re: merits.
WolfmanMac at June 18, 2008 9:07 AM
Wolfmanmac said BTW, I noticed she informed us of a response with a link to HER site. Who coulda seen that comin'...
Unfortunately for you sweetie, I am not a passive woman. If someone attacks me, I will always respond. The days of publicly flagellating women without response are over.
Just exactly when were those days, sweetie? I've been around this Earth awhile and don't seem to recall them.
Furthermore, I for one did acknowledge that feminists, or wyminists, or whatever you choose to call yourself do like to talk about the suffering of women in muslim countries - when they can somehow massage it into a conversation about how their suffering somehow proves Western women's oppressed status.
One would need a thesaurus to do justice to half the adjectives that apply to your little schtick - but they all add up to one thing - "tired."
WolfmanMac at June 18, 2008 9:14 AM
Oh twister of words you are Amy, I never implied that lujps lacked credibility.
Actually, I'm real straight up. Where do I say you implied lujlp lacked credibility?
"Oh great dick worshiper!!"
Well, I do have a thing for penises, and the men attached to them, I must admit, but I don't read Aristotle and Ellis because they're men, but because their work has value. Ellis' work substantially influences mine, and Aristotle was an early foundation for me. Higher reasoning is what divides humans from animals. You might try it sometime, instead of hiding behind the obfuscating bullshit language of feminists. They say it incomprehensibly because they really have nothing to say. Nothing of value, anyway.
Amy Alkon at June 18, 2008 9:40 AM
And what about your dishonesty in making out words to be mine which aren't mine at all? You're ethically creepy.
Amy Alkon at June 18, 2008 9:42 AM
Amy I have to disagree with you here,
I feel that higher reasoning elevates man among the animals, but given the daily examples we see of how we traet ourselves and each other its ovious to me we are still among the animals.
I do agree with you on penis worship though, mine ofcourse
lujlp at June 18, 2008 9:51 AM
So this Renee person thinks that the words/works of the likes of Ellis and Aristotle should be discounted because they are men? But I thought the point of feminism was to equality where someone is not accepted or discounted based on their gender? Did I just walk into a contridiction?
Danny at June 18, 2008 9:55 AM
You walked into the truth: Feminism is about hating and disparaging and hurting men.
The notion that I'd either vote for Hillary because she's a woman or toss out Aristotle, Ellis, and countless other great thinkers because they have penises is just unfathomable to me.
The problem with this woman is that she's not very smart, but she's learned to parrot the feminist lingo, which she thinks passes for actual rational thought. Feminists and other special interest irrational types are actually such a piece of cake to argue with that it's boring to do so -- although there is the frustrating element because they generally refuse to admit (to you or themselves) that your logic has trumped their emotionalism and victimism.
I must remember Cathy Seipp's advice, not to suffer tiny little nitwits.
The beginning of this woman's intial post was just too hilarious not to make fun of.
Amy Alkon at June 18, 2008 10:06 AM
Oh twister of words you are Amy, I never implied that lujps lacked credibility.
Amy didn't post that, I did, Renee. Then you disparaged Amy for not correcting him, via this: Notice no commentary is made on Luljp's misspelling of vagina. You may posses one, however it is clearly not important to you that they are respected, or that the word is even spelled properly for that matter.
You're a walking contradiction, and definitely do not represent my understanding of what feminism is, to wit: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. See also equity: the quality of being fair or impartial; fairness; impartiality; something that is fair and just. For ALL. Not just those who agree with you.
Flynne at June 18, 2008 10:24 AM
Lujlp,
Forgive me for this, but she does have a point here, and to prevent her from bloviating at length about it (for want of anything else to crow about), I'm going to diffuse it now -
HEY! LUJLP MISSPELLED "VAGINA!"
There now, Renee, someone commented on it. Care to make an actual, ya know, point now?
WolfmanMac at June 18, 2008 10:36 AM
Oh, God, Marcia Pappas is at it again. I'm ashamed that I know this woman personally. Frankly, she turned me off NOW but good.
Is anyone better at googling than I am? I spent some time, without success, trying to find anything about the "little" court case that netted her the presidency of NYS NOW.
A little in-battle between her and another woman (whose name unfortunately escapes me) elected to the position were embroiled in a lawsuit over who was the rightfully elected president. Something they did not want known outside of NOW meetings but I got an eye-opening about the reality of this so-called "feminism" listening to her rail on at every meeting at the Albany chapter about the catfighting between herself and this woman. Made me embarrassed to be female, frankly, which is not supposed to be NOW's goal exactly. (Don't worry, Amy, I'm not seriously embarrassed to be female and strong woman such as yourself not afraid of men make me glad to also openly state strongly opinated not afraid of men statements.) Frankly, from what I could see, Marcia was simply able to muster the bigger and badder army of supporters for the court badder, um, maybe because she came from the State capital. But I didn't see any real reason for the victory.
Anyone else able to find anything or are they that good at covering it up?
As for the family court system and CPS and bias for women... Sigh, I'm having severe problems with my adult daughter (problems with mental illness) who has deterioated to the point where I actually told my grandson's father this week that if he goes for custody, I'd support him fully. I went off on my daughter's social worker in a phone conversation with her because she didn't think I should or that if he does get custody, it should be permanent.
Frankly, I think it needs to be -- for my grandson's sake. Yes, we had problems in the past -- now a couple of years in the past -- where he did not take his food allergies seriously. The court made him get educated on that score and there have been no repeats of his being stupid about that. He had custody following my daughter's hospitalization (for a suicide attempt) a little over a year ago during which he brought my grandson to see me and I've got to say my grandson was happy and healthy under his and his girlfriend's care but, largely because of the food allergy issue, the custody was made joint.
However, my daughter has become erratic. She went off her medication and her housekeeping is a mess, she won't/can't find/keep a job. She got so verbally abusive of me -- her and my grandson's main financial support -- that I moved out both because it got to a matter of she had to sink or swim and because it was no way good for him to hear her constantly yelling at me for helping them. (I stayed far longer than I should have because I feared for my grandson but the courts and Social Services don't listen to grandmothers either). I didn't leave until, frankly, I was drained emotionally, physically (this has taken quite a toll on my health) and financially.
I was so mad that I told the social worker exactly what I thought of the concept that if he gets custody, it would be temporary custody. When I told his father and his girlfriend that I'd support custody, they felt -- and I agreed with them -- that it'd have to be permanent, none of this continuing to flip him back and forth between two homes and two schools. Now the social worker says the courts would probably give custody back to her if she got better and I am livid at the notion.
Better for how long this time? Is my grandson just to be bounced back and forth depending on her health. She's been diagnosed with depression and I strongly suspect is bipolar. On the right medication, she gets her act passably together. (I found out from the social worker that she had stopped taking her medication and that was the cause of her behavior.) She takes all her anger at world out on me but I worry about at what point is that going to get transferred to my grandson.
Frankly, and it breaks my heart to say this, but she's an unfit mother. She's an okay mother on the right medication but then seriously relied on me too much then resented me for it. She can't seem to function as a mother without my doing more of the job than she is herself and she has more rights to permanent custody than he does? No, that's just not right. Is his father father of the year? No. But he has grown up while his mother's, frankly, gone in the opposite direction whether it's her fault or not and, hence, his father is the better choice for custody. (And if you think that was an easy thing for me to admit, you're crazy.)
What happened to the best interest of the child? Frankly, my grandson needs to be out of an unstable environment that his mother is creating and needs the stability of a home that is permanently his.
Oh, and before anyone suggests it, I have health problems that don't make me the best choice and frankly my parenting confidence is at an all time low. It was quite the opposite when she was growing up because she was one of exemplary children well-behaved in public and straight A student never in trouble that I always got compliments on. My grandson and I are very close. (He lifted my cell phone this week so his mother would have to bring him back to Grammy's to return it.) But 24/7 parenting will be difficult at best. I have trouble keeping up with him babysitting because I have severe arthiritis and digestive problems since an emergency operation on my colon the day after he was born that leave me easily fatigue. I do not feel up to raising a 4 year old boy (and, yes, damn it, he is more rambunctious than his mother ever was).
Sigh. However, if his father doesn't man up (and I'm still waiting to hear on this; if he's talked to his lawyer and has heard the same thing about how she can come yank the kid back when she appears better he may not and you can't really blame him though were it me I would just to know my kid was okay for however long) it may come to that. I ranted about not being up to it and this social worker still afterwards mentioned that NY does the grandparents as foster parents thing. Aargh! I'm sorry about the side rant but I am damned sick and tired also of family court and social services using and using and using grandma as a resource -- did I say using, I mean depending on -- then not letting her have any say at all.
But let's talk about the sexism that has removed the phrases "in the best interest of the child" and "unfit mother" from family court proceedings to the detriment of my grandson's generation in general and to my grandson specifically.
Donna at June 18, 2008 11:00 AM
Renee: Just another example of someone commenting on something they haven't researched. lizzy, had you taken the time to read my blog you would have noticed that I have commented on the sufferings of women in Muslim countries.
Pot. Kettle. I note that you stated that Amy was a homophobe.
Renee, anything you might have said that made sense, I was able to immediately dismiss upon seeing your hilarious (no, no: hi-fucking-larious) accusation that Amy is homophobic. I'm not sure there's a blogger out there, who isn't G/B/L/T themselves, that's LESS homophobic than Amy.
What you need to learn, Renee, is that there are people who disagree with you who are *still right*, and not evil misogynistic penis-worshipping rape-supporting fiends. You may disagree with them, but that doesn't mean they're wrong.
Amy, if I may try to distill her opinions into a couple of tiny soundbites, is opposed to feminism because, too often, it is "anti-men" rather than "pro-equality" (or "pro-equity", if you prefer).
So answer a question or two, if you will.
1) Why, exactly, must women represent 51% of, say, CEOs and political leaders?
2) Why, exactly, do you not propose that women must represent 51% of, say, coal miners and auto mechanics?
3) What do you propose be done about jobs that are currently female-dominated? Should companies fire female secretaries and replace them with men until there's that nice 49-51% split?
4) Do you not recognize that you fall into the typical trap where you consider yourself better than those you profess to represent? That any woman who doesn't agree with you simply *doesn't understand* properly, and with proper guidance - from you and your ilk, of course - they'll realize the error of their ways? That's a rather... patronizing way of thinking, don't you think?
Early feminist pioneers, unquestionably, made immense strides for women. And now, in 2008, I as a woman, am strong enough to stand up for myself to say "I *am* equal to men, and I don't need any particular group to back me up." Hell, I don't want to get a job "because" I'm a woman. That's infantilizing. I want to get a job because I *will* kick ass at it.
Larisa at June 18, 2008 12:43 PM
Larisa:
1) Why, exactly, must women represent 51% of, say, CEOs and political leaders?
2) Why, exactly, do you not propose that women must represent 51% of, say, coal miners and auto mechanics?
3) What do you propose be done about jobs that are currently female-dominated? Should companies fire female secretaries and replace them with men until there's that nice 49-51% split?
Three questions for when you absolutely have to confuse the hell out of anyone that demands that job representation be split in some predetermined manner. And often those answers will unearth the reality: said person thinks that equal opportunity is the same thing as equal results.
Danny at June 18, 2008 1:03 PM
The funny thing is, even rabid equality-of-outcome feminists refuse to apply these same principles in the areas of, say, domestic violence help or custody battles.
Every argument they use for other areas can easily be applied here too. So why don't they?
Hypocrites much?
Factory at June 18, 2008 1:08 PM
Hah, from Pappas' of NYNOW's article on Hillary's unwelcome gang bang":
"We've all witnessed scenarios where, on the playground little girls are being taunted by little boys while both girls and boys stand idle, afraid to speak up or even cheering. "
So where's my support for when a girl in the first grade "pants'd" me on the jungle gym? It was clearly sexual harrassment. Why I'm still traumatized by it today, 25 years later! (that was indeed sarcasm, just to be clear) She wanted to get into my spiderman underoos, the little harlot! Her friends sure enjoyed it and cheered her on. Could it be, just maybe, kids being kids? Oh, no, sugar and spice and everything nice...
Also reminds me of the case in MA a year or so ago of a first grade boy who was suspended for "sexually harrassing" a girl classmate by snapping the elastic waistband on her pants. Come to find out, the girl had done the same thing to him minutes earlier. No, he was the bad guy in that one...
Then there was the case in McMinnville OR last year where several 12 yr old boys faced serious criminal charges for spanking girls on the bottom in their middle school hallways. What happened to the girls who also admitted to the school cop during interogation that they spanked the boys back? Nuthin... The boys "got off" after a court room apology, a few hundred in fines (to pay for counseling) and ordered to take sensitivity training.
Also, my sympathies to you Donna on your tough situation. I hope the best for you and your family. Child services doesn't want you to have any say because that would take away some/all of their power. Power tends to corrupt and all, especially when they get federal kickbacks(incentives as it were) for every dollar in child support they collect.
FP at June 18, 2008 1:20 PM
My physics joke was darn funny. A scream really. If this was a fair world I'd be able to sue you people for not recognizing it and laughing at it with me.
jerry at June 18, 2008 1:58 PM
Donna,
I'm also sorry to hear about your family problems and I hope things work out for your grandson.
Regarding "best interests of the child", that statement is still in the courts, it's way too pervasive in fact, because basically it is used to cover any judgment of the court, regardless of how unconstitutional that judgment is.
I have found "best interests of the child" really mean:
a) the solution that gets the lawyers paid
b) what the judge thinks is right, regardless of evidence
c) a solution that impacts everyone, even if such a solution would be unheard of in an intact family. (For instance, in intact families, since when is "best interests of the child" the test for parenting, or just about anything including schooling, religious education, parent's careers)
d) an unconstitutional solution that violates free speech, due process, or equal protection. Eugene Volokh has written about this: here
(I wish Glenn Sacks would interview Volokh!)
jerry at June 18, 2008 2:12 PM
"We've all witnessed scenarios where, on the playground little girls are being taunted by little boys while both girls and boys stand idle, afraid to speak up or even cheering. "
And while were talking about the past where were the cops when I was in 3 grade and whenever we played kickball the girls would INTENTIONALLY hit the boys between the legs? And don't get me started on dodgeball.
Danny at June 18, 2008 2:15 PM
You want to know what happens when "best interest of the child" goes to the courts?
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080618/canada/canada_child_court_offbeat
I have no words... except to say that I hope the father gives up the custody fight, because it's totally no-win for him.
Irene at June 18, 2008 2:32 PM
Irene,
Had to check several times to make sure that didn't come from the Onion.
Oy.
jerry at June 18, 2008 2:56 PM
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g188/shelbyyytime/vagina.jpg
Doobie at June 18, 2008 4:23 PM
Jerry, I for one thought your physics joke was neat. It gave me a hadron.
Norman at June 19, 2008 12:45 AM
Thanks, FP and Jerry.
Jerry, shudder. I've read about this scary trend before. All I can say is ask my daughter who the better parent was her Atheist Mom or her Baptist Dad. Even now when she blames me for everything that's wrong in the world or goes wrong in her life (yes, she's mentally ill and the things going wrong are usually caused by that, something she can't see but anyone who isn't clearly can), she'd tell you the Atheist parent was the better.
Irene, unbelievable. I can't believe the nonsense that goes on in courts today. Words escape me. Would the court prefer this child meet up with some creep she "met" on-line? Dad took the right action.
Donna at June 19, 2008 10:11 AM
Amy, I just took another look at her site ... and it'll be a last look, trust me. Her [current] last comment on the whole "battle" with you was about how she's thinking about devoting a column each week to all the "hate mail" she receives.
First, we should all alert the media about this overwhelmingly important news story.
Second, in the mind of a permanent victim like her, I wonder what precisely constitutes "hate mail". I have little doubt that in her Permanent Victim laden mind any mail beginning with, "I respectfully disagree with you because ..." would fall into the hate category.
Finally, just a reminder to you all that this woman is TYPICAL of sooooo many up here in Canada. And the government is actively encouraging more!
Robert W. at June 19, 2008 11:44 AM
All the hate mail she receives? That's hilarious. As if she writes something interesting and thoughtful enough for people (besides her feminist ditto-heads) to do more than drop in and have a laugh at it.
I get piles of hate mail, much of it from women who are irate, IRATE, that I don't walk in lockstep with those like this woman. Most of it's too dull to post. Yeah, yeah, I'm a "self-loathing woman" because I, for example, believe a geeky guy flirting with you at the office isn't cause to have him reported to human resources, merely cause to kindly but firmly let him know you're not interested.
P.S. If she had the idea to publish her mail on her blog, I'm guessing she got it here, after seeing the letter I put up from the religious nutter -- as I often do when I get a particularly weird piece of mail. I don't see a hell of a lot of original thought coming from this chick.
Sorry, would that be "chyck?"
Amy Alkon at June 19, 2008 12:53 PM
I know I may get some flak for this but I've been commenting on her post (the one called "Feminism - What You Don't Know Could Fill A Handbook") and she seems more misguided that plain hateful. But she also posted this where she comes off sounding like she thinks black men never have to deal with sexism because they're men. I really hope this woman isn't one of those that thinks sexism can only be male against female...
Danny at June 19, 2008 1:22 PM
The problem is, her misguidedness promotes hate (well, if anybody but five feminist ditto-heads are reading it). But, she's also raising two little boys, and if her blog is any indication, I'd venture that their little heads will be filled with a good deal of shame and confusion about being male. (Little Hugo Schwyzers in the best of the worst case scenarios, and little Robert Jensens in the worst of the worst.)
Amy Alkon at June 19, 2008 2:02 PM
Danny said - I really hope this woman isn't one of those that thinks sexism can only be male against female...
I think its a safe bet she does, my brother.
WolfmanMac at June 19, 2008 2:38 PM
I pity those kids.
Scatmaster JJ at June 19, 2008 4:17 PM
You are the ones that are promoting hate towards Renee. I don't expect to change anyone here, but instead of picking out small portions of ones post/blog and attacking the person, and being rude and obnoxios in the process. Why not attack the subject matter, you would be surprised on how much further this tack will get you.
Scott at June 20, 2008 12:27 AM
Scott, here in the real world, outside the victimist circles, debate isn't considered hateful. And frankly, no one hates Renee. She isn't that interesting.
I don't go through all her points because she's not very smart or very logical, and not a very good writer, and thus she's a bore to critique. Rebecca Solnit, on the other hand, while being a sniveling idiot, was at least fun to slap around.
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/14/rebecca_solnit.html
Also, this girl (gyrl?) posted a bunch of quotes as if they were mine, and made them seem to be mine. I don't deal with people like that. My question for you: did she do that because she's dishonest and scummy or because she's just not a very sharp thinker?
Enquiring minds...!
Amy Alkon at June 20, 2008 1:26 AM
Danny, I actually sat through that You Tube clip.
(Can't say the thing for her blogs, my brain goes number after a couple of sentences that make no sense in spite of being long winded and feels like it's been given novacainne to ease the pain and I just can't take any more in).
What a ridiculous obsession over one word! These so-called feminists obsess over endlessly focusing on their vaginas but let someone use the common slang for the same and they freak.
And frankly, in my world anyway, calling a woman a cunt means about the same thing as calling a man a prick.
I bet they don't freak over that. In fact that whole damned video seems not only designed to call McCain one but promotes physical violence against men for use of the "wrong" word. Who's the real sicko?
You know I've got to go back and give them a piece of my mind; that really pisses me off.
Didn't their mommies ever teach them sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me? Or maybe it was their daddies and instead of listening they thought it feasible to break his bones?
Really, really fucked up. It may not get posted but I'm sure as hell gonna tell them so.
Donna at June 20, 2008 9:30 AM
Naw, it's never get posted. She is not as brave as Amy and has to approve them first, which says a lot about her really being afraid to debate and defend her arguments. Doubt we'll see any that really take her on. At most, she'll allow a few timid or stupid sounding ones. And why do I feel I'm giving her too much credit with that.
I said this:
Man, that video was really fucked up.
Are you actually suggesting that any word justifies physical violence? That it's okay to beat someone up for merely using the word?
If so, then would you think it okay for a man to beat up a woman for calling him a prick, which is basically the same thing?
Donna at June 20, 2008 9:38 AM
If you are a fan of Paglia and Hoff Sommers, but don't like Steinem or Dworkin? Come join antimisandry.com "the cure for feminist indoctrination." Hang around and share your views.
Geoff at June 20, 2008 1:17 PM
Hab Cam to Cam schonmal ausprobiert ist ne nette Sache geht aber ganz schön ins Geld leider ist die Übertragungsrate nur bei einem Dsl Anschluß der oberen Klasse richtig gut mit dem Smarphone kann man das ganz echt vergessen zumindest bei mir den das Bild ruckelt und zuckelt nur macht echt kein Spaß sowas
Markus at May 11, 2011 1:58 AM
Leave a comment