babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Oh Heywood, I stopped wasting my time on you and your act a long time ago.
So, feminist men should have no input?
I went to school in BC (in a suburb of Vancouver) and we had sex ed all the way through starting in grade 2 I believe. I think the earlier the better for sex ed. When you're young, you don't question or understand the emotional stuff and just learn the mechanics. I learned from National Geographic which had good illustrations: penis goes in, sperm shoots out, baby gets made. (Actually, I used to think you got a baby everytime - meaning my parents did the deed a grand total of 3 times). Obviously, you don't need to explain all the details, but it's good for kids to know the basics. If kids feel comfortable talking about sex in grade 2, maybe they'll be more comfortable talking about it in grade 12. Although, not too comfortable I guess, I remember my mother chastizing me for asking one of her friends if her tubes were tied too!
"Feminist men" don't need you to attempt to stick up for them with your typical routine.
Of course, if you're really done with my "act", as you so put it, then feel free to really be done and just not respond.
Erm, what I'm saying is that I (also a feminist) detected no such implication, and try as I might I can't see how the post could be read in such a manner. Nor did I see any instance of him saying what the feminist movement should do next - just an expression of what he would like to see happen, and which, I presume, we would all like to see happen (but I could be wrong). However, it's your right to read it however you want, and since you're not the only one I'll admit there may be something there I'm not seeing, but I still think you both took the post completely wrong. As you said this is a thread about success and SA's post was applauding that success and trying to start a dialogue about how to further it. As for personal attacks, SA's post was the one that was immediately followed with the suggestion that he 'fuck right off.'
Finally, new though I may be to actually posting here, and I really do mean this with no disrespect, it hasn't taken me long to observe that both you and remind can get snappy.
[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: Boze ]
"you haven't done a good enough job, why haven't you done it this way, or that way, you could've acheived more by....." followed by presumptive and erroneous criticism that indeed we, all the groups SA listed, have not worked together to acheive what we have over the decades, nor will we ever.
IMV, it is just another abusive way that men control women in society. It illuminates the fact that men, and women, have an entrenched belief that; women can't dance far enough, fast enough, hard enough to please men, even when it comes to our OWN self determination. truth is we have been fighting them, even so called progressive men, and the cult religions to acheive what we have. And these results show both how far we have came and to have a man minimalize/trivialize it as if we could've done better is galling and abusive.
Then, when we call people on it, we have more men telling us we are wrong to see what we see in those words, and when we say we have every right to see what we see, we are called sharp toned. Or have a male coming on to say he is feminist and we must be wrong cause HE doesn't see it.
skadl, over at BnR was talking about where we women are finding ourselves today around the world and here in Canada, and her words show blinding insight and could be made for this sexist dialogue that is occuring. As follows:
and the following by skadl, also on the same thread really should be thought about by women who frequent babble.
bolding mine
http://www.breadnroses.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19338&start=0
So, for those men who think they are feminists, or profess to be, really take a look at what you say. It ain't pretty, and it ain't feminist. It is typical entrenched patriarchy control mechanisms of women.
And perhaps some the professed "progressive feminist men and women" here should have a read of Joss's commentary at Whedonesque rergarding watching a woman getting beaten to death, men, and society. It should be enlightening for you.
http://whedonesque.com/comments/13271
[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: remind ]
Well then I guess that makes a random personal attack acceptable then. Gotta keep a snappy broad in line eh? Why defend minkepants? He swanned in here to take a shot at me. I can support reminds reading because I can see where it came from. It's not like Feminists here haven't been derided for being snappy or disagreeing before so I am unmoved by your assertation, SA has been plenty snappy upon occasion yet no comment on his "reputation". And I think more often than not progressive men like to tell us ever helpfully what we should really have done it or how to do it better. It's bloody annoying. I know it comes from a good place but it doesn't make it less wrongheaded.
I don't think it was purposefully sexist but it came from a place of helpfullness that gets on some peoples nerves. Remind can read it how she sees it, she can also disagree with other people on the thread without you telling her that her convictios and expereinces are just blind stuborness and to be ignored. It's not like she told you that by disagreeing you aren't willinging to see ou viewpoint. Cause you obvioulsy aren't and that's life but you turned it into a personal attack becasue she isn't convinced. That's not fair. Do we really want to chase off another Feminist voice?
Since when is posting links to other sites of all stripes wrong? This I just don't get. To take her to task for posting valuable Feminist dialog is wrong.
And that has nothing to do with me does it? Are some personal attacks okay? Ones against snappy women are okay but "fuck off" is not?
Maybe you should read it again, because he certainly had an idea then made a dismissive comment about it actually happening. I think we have worked with those willing to achieve the same goals. I think suggesting we hadn't and needing to good forward an do so showed a limited knowledge of the subject.
And it just good old fashioned irritates me to have men constantly tell us what we should do and run around yelling well I'm a feminist too. It's been like that for years around here we have lost many women for it. Babble has several guys who really get this idea and I haven't seen them in this thread. Just my opinion though.
None of this was said.
I never called you sharp-toned, but I do think you overreact, and I thought this before I knew your gender. Read your first post in this thread again.
Finally, about this:
What you are describing exists, for sure. There is sexism and patriarchal and generally oppressive behaviour embedded in our society that goes unnoticed (but not unfelt by the oppressed) and even progressive men are generally unaware of the full extent of male privilege and their own sexist behaviour. I grapple with this every day, as does any pro-feminist male. But I don't see it in this thread.
[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: Boze ]
Scout, I have purposefully kept my comments confined to remind and not you because of the way she has expressed those thoughts. And this isn't about having to be "nice and pleasant" to conform to stupid sexist stereotypes. I just find many of the interventions above to be quite over the top and utterly devoid of any space to have a dialogue. That's why I reacted so negatively to the lifted quote from skdadl. I mean, Jesus Christ, this is a thread about whether it's useful to talk about possible spaces for dialogue on reproductive rights, and now we have a (very powerful but) quite different tangent about women being stoned and getting their faces shot off.
THAT SAID, I should not have said it had "dick all" to with the thread and I regret that comment. I understand why it might have a place in discussions of this kind. But in the moment I really saw it as a frankly unfair escalation of the discussion.
[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: pookie ]
Why are you apologizing to remind, who appears to think she invented feminism? She's off track here, she might even know it, but she just keeps shrieking louder and louder. Welcome to the new left.
First off, SA does NOT include himself in those he lists, in fact, he sets himself apart and takes on the role of imparting the all seeing wisdom of knowing what those "others" over there should be doing to get the job done.
Then comes the goodie as to really why he thinks the job isn't done, and it is because they can't agree even to "work together". Now there is two things happening with his chastizing observation they can't agree to work together.
1. It sets a tone of these "other" people don't really care because if they did they would've worked together.
2. It is a patently false perception.
This false opinion is caused perhaps by lack of knowledge, or critical thinking. Either way it gives him a set apart tone of superiority and of implied condemnation, as he has made a judgement. He also sees and departs no inclusiveness of his own responsibility, in the picture he paints. This lack of inclusion implies he sees himself as; neither a progressive, or a feminist, nor anything else he listed.
As scout has pointed out, several times now, secular feminists have worked together for decades with those "others" that were pointed out to acheive what equality and rights we have.
Now we go to where he lists "these ideas," as if these ideas are new, and some how all those "others" he listed are too busy not agreeing to work together and have not been working on them, or even seen thought about it.
This is partriachial chastisement and sexist presumptions.
Now comes the final summation in brilliance, which concludes with the notion that there are those in the audience, that he is addressing with his "we'll", who are of superior awareness, action and observation skills and he has duly noted that he includes himself with those.
how so?
He tells the other readers out there, who must feel like him, to forget it, it is an impossible that it will happen anytime soon, which again points straight to the notion that the others -he listed- are to busy fighting and cannot agree to assist each other, so again will naturally fail to do the things he listed as needing to be yet done.
This of course is implied failure of action and thought on several fronts by those "others" but not of course with the "we'll" crowd.
His use of "don't think we'll see that anytime soon" underscores a implied notion of long suffering patience, with the squabblers who do not agree and who are failing the youth because of it.
And SA concretely sets himself apart from those he was being critical of. as if he had some right to be critical in the first place.
Finally, just who are those others he is appealing too, with his "we'll" eh? think about it! He set the tone that the "others" who are too busy disagreeing, are supposed to believe that those he includes in his "doubt we'll see", are actually doing those things he lists, while the "others" he listed are not? What that does is imply those others over there should be feeling guilty, another wonderful disparging control mechanism.
The mysterious "we'll" audience to which he is speaking, imparts supremcy of thought and action, and is speaking down, not across.
[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: remind ]
Regarding the "myserious 'we' audience," suppose I said, "What we've just seen shows how someone can twist another's words to infer something that was not said or implied." Supremacy of thought and action? Speaking down?
[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: Boze ]
In that scenario, he then would still be wrongly speaking for others, still telling them/himself what they/him have not done, and still condemning others/himself.
And he would still be in just as much error in his judgement of others NOT doing.
And here we have it, another man, who is a self professed feminist, telling actual women, who are feminists, and have a record of being so here, they are twisting things when they are unwilling to accept; what they perceive to be entrenched patriarchial judgements and criticsms, nor falsely based beliefs on non-cooperation and agreement with progressive "Christians".
I'm confused. Suppose I were to say that socialists should be agitating harder for a higher minimum wage or a guaranteed minimum income or whatever. Would I be guilty of speaking for others?
Okay, this is the substantive part of your argument and you're right.
You know, you're right that that's generally not a cool thing to do, it's kind of like denying others' experiences. But sometimes...just sometimes...it's warranted. I count at least seven members who think you totally mischaracterized that post.
And what the fuck does record have to do with anything?? And "self-professed"...You know you're getting desperate when you have to use this argument, remind...if that's even your real name!!
[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: Boze ]
I'm sure glad there are still few honest and rational activists around here who can counter-balance the apologists and paranoid dogmatists who clearly nothing better to do than looking under every bush to find enemies.
I, or anyone else for that matter, don't need to justify or explain myself to self-righteous know-it-alls who clearly are so insecure they have use their gender as some sort of special privilege to comment on issues they think are their exclusive purview, completely blind to their own bigotry.
The example here: Since I'm a guy, I must therefore be secretly plotting to destroy the women's rights movements via subliminal messages in my use of words like "we" and other common terms that I MUST somehow be applying some hidden meaning to. This is kind of like the various religious fanatics in the 1980s that would play heavy metal and Beatles records backwards and claim among the total senseless gibberish they were hearing Satanic messages.
I learned long ago the trying to reason with these types, regardless of what flag they fly (feminist, Christian, progressive, whatever) is a waste of time, and I encourage folks here not to put too much energy into it either.
So, for the benefit of the good folks here, it’s obvious from the first paragraph in that post I made, where I’m putting most of the blame.
In terms of my use of “we” and “us,” it’s equally obvious that I include myself, since I don’t know how to use those prepositions in any other context.
And in terms of where I got the suggestions I made, I said I had read and spoken with activists. What kind of activists do you think I was talking to or reading about that could inspire me to write those suggestions, other than feminists, pro-choice advocates and progressive Christians?
Yet, in my experience, when I have suggested in various forums these groups make more of an effort to work together on these matters, I have either been laughed at or told there is no practical benefit to doing so—and told this by the various dogmatists and holier-than-thou types who seem to be experts and alienating potential support in order to protect whatever little fiefdoms they seem to want to create for themselves.
This is the case, even though many feminist and progressive religious groups have worked as part of larger coalitions on broader concerns, like resisting the brutality of the BC Liar regime, or supporting striking workers, fighting racism, war and poverty and promoting world peace and disarmament.
Yet when it comes to issues like choice on abortion, sex education, morality, sexual stuff, etc., these two sectors, at least out here, seem to operate in different orbits, even though the disagreements between them don’t seem that profound—and that seems like a lost opportunity to further a good cause.
Statements were made which demonstrate only too clearly the sense of entitlement some people have when it comes to suggesting, either directly or indirectly, what feminists really "ought" to do to advance the cause of feminism...
Such statement suggests we haven't been doing that all along. To which I say fuck you. We have always been open to dialogue, we have always been open to discussion, we have always been more than willing to work with good hearted like minded people regardless of their ties to religion or even government bureaucracy. To suggest anything else is bullshit of the first and worst order. To suggest, even indirectly, that those discussions, dialogues, negotiations and communications aren't happening every day across this nation is slander. So fuck ya!
What we most decidedly do NOT need is to be given direction by men. And do not annoy me or bore me with your protestations that you are a feminist man. That's as oxymoronic as the term peaceful nuclear weapon. It is as insulting as the term survivable nuclear war. It is, in one anglo saxon term, bullshit.
Not all men are arstles, and not all arstles are men, but there does seem to be some strong evidence to point to a preponderance of arstles being men, some of whom claim to be feminist men.
Yeah, and my dog plays the piano.
You are feminist men when it so suits you. You are feminist men when it is safe to be feminist supporting. I do not see vast swarms of you showing up to demonstrate against wage disparity, I do not see entire phalanxes of you turning out, placards in hand, to demand more and better childcare, and I sure as hell don't see or hear entire legions of you making one helluva racket to get women's sports covered on the TV, women athletes given recognition. Our women's hockey team has done far better than the guys and what do we see and hear on TV? More shite about the NHL and a huge debate on whether or not some kid made a PI comment about a particular ethnic group...as if it really was going to change things.
You don't see what the slaughter of a seventeen year old somewhere else has to do with your life here in Canada? Did you really say that? Did you REALLY say that?
I guess anyone can call his or her self "progressive". Not much I can do about that. But not anybody can call his or her self feminist and get away with it unchallenged. I can do something about that!
Scout isn't wrong. Yeah, she might have been something other than polite, she might even have been "sharp", or, hevvin forfend, abrasive. You get that way after untold years of having some fekkin male taking it upon himself to be so convinced he is entitled to be the manny-nanny that he can lecture the entire feminist movement.
If you really have the delusion that you have the answer to a centuries old problem, GO TELL IT TO THE GUYS.
Now I think I'll flounce again. This place really is a dreary place for feminists. I knew that but damned if I'm going to leave two good women standing against a pack of smug self proclaimed experts on feminist tactic.
Hey, Scout..Remind..c'mon over for a cuppa tea and some intelligent conversation. It'll do ya's good. Here there be dinosaurs.
Oh gee, are we working on a band wagon principal now?
Lets have a look see who they are, eh?
phrillie - pffft
pookie - does not see the message in serious feminist commentary, nor does she see how the commentary by Joss Wheldon's is pertinent to the entenched societal patriarchial sexist commentary that I perceived in SA's posts and others here since, 'nuff said.
Michelle - I believe that brebis noire said it best:
http://www.breadnroses.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19338&start=0
pollybrandybuck - Perhaps did not read it critically, or is too young to know, as well, all the actions done by both secular feminists and progressive Christians.
What the men have to say, about how I should perceive things, on this topic, including yourself, have no meaningfull regard to me, actually, so I would never consider their input.
It was actually a comment geared towards 'phrillie' and 'pookie'.
No, actually, by hectoring such as yours, you know people are desperate, and by when they self profess to be "feminists" in order to be considered expert witnesses/testifiers, and their commentary suggests anything but, and especially when it is a male saying it.
Oh, and BTW, remember I am on trial here for saying fuck to steppenwolf, but it is okay for you to say it, I see. Again, great double standards in word usage, for a "feminist", just as scout pointed out earlier!
This is vile sexism. I really don't like to use that word in this manner (i.e. to refer to sexism directed against men) very often, but clearly this case warrants it. What else can you call it? What is progressive about excluding men from feminism?
You do not own the latter any more than you own the former!! Am I supposed to say "pro-feminist" instead of feminist just for your sake?? Don't make me laugh.
Uh, this was not said. What was said is that it doesn't have anything to do with this thread.
I somehow doubt this, as any feminist grouping that you are a part of is surely worse off for it.
Remind: I wouldn't even know where to begin. It doesn't matter how many people think you flipped off the handle at nothing, since you can apparently find a way to dismiss anyone. Why are the words of some worth more than others, you elitist?? That is what I meant when I asked what the fuck you meant by record. Who gives a shit about anyone's record??
[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: Boze ]
This doesn't make SA a bad person; but we all have to examine and understand the assumptions we make, because some of them need to change. And the older feminists have run into more patriarchal assumptions and are more likely to recognise them for what they are.
SA, you have gone way too far, and show yourself exactly who you are.
I stand by my first perception of your commentary based upon your attempt to defame me and other feminists, and now by your attack against anne, as being "loony". How dare you!
Time to grow up, SA, and get some knowledge, so you can stop slandering, as anne said, others.
Well said. I think remind pointed out very clearly what was troublesome with the assertions made. Very similar to the disguised attack Elizabeth May made on the pro-choice movement and in her case, I believe she knew exactly what she was doing.
As Scout mentioned, the original article is a good news story. It means that reproductive choice is working. Seems to me that the only negative in the story is that condoms are not being used alone or in combination with other birth control and that has resulted in a rise in STDs. Of course, one of the problems is that the responsibility for birth control still falls predominantly on the shoulders of women. And that is really unfortunate.
Anne, it's lovely to see you again, and I think you made some good points, but frankly, I think it really sucks that you insult a bunch of people who have stayed on babble when you have obviously (and unfortunately - I do miss you) made a different decision, and then end by telling people to go to BnR for "intelligent conversation", thus implying that we are not intelligent here. I think BnR is great, I lurk there on occasion and I love to see what you folks are up to over there, but you'll notice that I don't go over there and post shit about your forum members or your forum. The same consideration from you would be lovely. I'm sure there is lots of room on BnR for you to talk about how much babble sucks, including a current thread going on there now.
And it's not about Scout and remind being "impolite". It's about a number of people here, INCLUDING WOMEN, who think they misinterpreted what Steppenwolf had to say. And yeah, I'm sorry, but firing off a volley of abuse at someone who is generally progressive before making sure they meant what you think they meant really sucks, and it's not allowed on babble. And if you do it, you're going to get called on it, feminist or not. All I ask is that perhaps people give other progressives the benefit of the doubt occasionally, and dial back the invective, even if we think someone is mistaken about something.
I see that there have been about 5 posts since I started composing this, with escalating acrimony. (Edited to say - I didn't see laine lowe's post when I wrote that, sorry - thanks for descalating, laine lowe, much appreciated.) I think it would be nice if people would step back, take a deep breath, and stop the flame war. Because at this point, that's what it's become. If necessary, I can close the thread and we can start afresh once we've all caught our tempers. But at this point, nothing productive is happening.
[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
I agree wholeheartedly, but not in this case. I am not the one deconstructing, remind posted a wonderful deconstruction a few posts up. But as to the suggestion that we defer to "older" anything...nuh-uh. No way. That "respect your elders" shit doesn't fly with me. Age is just a number and does not entitle you to be taken one iota more seriously.
Edit: sorry Michelle
[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: Boze ]
Not young or stupid, Remind. I just don't happen to agree with you on this one.
Edited to say oops sorry Michelle I should scroll up first maybe.
[ 21 May 2007: Message edited by: Polly Brandybuck ]
Defame? Slander? Get some knowledge? Attack!
Just go back and read your huge blogs here about your totally factless and presumptuous conclusions about what you think I "really mean," as if there's some sort of lurking evil waiting to destroy--and then tell me why it shouldn't give me even the slightest idea that it might be loony.
The paranoia is bursting at the seams here, over two plain and straight-forward sentences in my post.
Then again, never mind. Given how things are going here, I don't think it will serve any purpose.
Oh this ought to be a great answer if I was to ask who you think I really am! Robert Pickton? Charles Manson? Or something even more ridiculous like the ghost of Ronald Reagan?
Again, never mind. Probably won't be worth reading.
(ah but to think who I could really be….)
Please allow me to introduce myself
I’m a man of wealth and taste
Been round for a long long year
stolen many man's soul and faith
I was around when Jesus Christ
had His moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
washed his hands and sealed His fate
Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game