Feminism: Women’s rights trumps men’s comforts and pleasures
Wed, 2008-01-02 11:46
#1
remind
Feminism: Women’s rights trumps men’s comforts and pleasures
Wed, 2008-01-02 11:46
#2
remind
There appears to be a growing angst against feminism and those striving women's equality, that is unhealthy for society, and extremely uhealthy for women. Women in Canada, and I say Canada specifically, as that is where we Canadian women must focus our attentions to halt, what I consider, the spreading of hate against empowered women. There are several examples exposing this currently.
Over the month of December, the Canadian blog world was in an uproar over feminists requesting a category in the Canadian Blog Awards. It was ugly and made so by those who apparently feel threatened by empowered women demanding equality and recognition.
One can read about it if one has missed it over [url=http://www.breadnroses.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21728&start=240]here[/url] at BnR. There are several connecting links that are a must read.
Now this is not about the awards and the lack of a feminist category, as who really cares in Canada, other than the bloggers themselves about blog awards. It is about exposing deeply held misogynist ideals. What was good to see was the solidarity of many male bloggers with the feminist bloggers quite correct position.
Then we have the religious/conservative right who are getting ever more shrill in their false accusations that feminists have destroyed the world. For example, a self proclaimed centrist, though he is anything but, had this, and so much more, nonsense to say:
quote:
It is certainly no coincidence that with increased liberty for women, independence, and the same inclination toward self-serving pursuits of happiness as men, that families would be left shattered as a result. The breakdown of the nuclear family is something which has been lamented by every conservative politician in the United States since Eisenhower. But broken families being a direct result of feminism is a rather facile generalization of the problem.
[url=http://unambig.blogspot.com/2008/01/rise-of-feminism-and-fall-of-family.... might say that feminism has been a "necessary evil", but insofar as that it has addressed the inequities of women, the ideology has fallen far short in addressing the socio-economic inequalities it has created, and erroneously blames it on white male-European entrenchment.[/url]
Heads up dude, it is not erroneous blame.
Then we have had a couple of threads here recently--notwithstanding the all the threads pertaining to women that men here overtake--that also appear to blame feminism for one thing or another. One in the feminist forum about Afghanistan's child brides and another about survival sex.
However, Amanda over at
[url=http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/02/6510/#more-6510]Pandagon[/url] tackles the [i]the grasping depravity of anti-feminist thinking. [/i] extremely well.
quote:
You know, I often wonder why convincing women to marry young has been such a big deal for anti-feminists, even dating back to the 80s, with the false report claiming that you’re more likely to be killed by terrorists than married in your 40s. Then I think about my own history, and consider how I had increasing amounts of personal power in each relationship as I got older, wiser, and less subject to the social standards that function mainly to oppress women...
Powerful observation that being forced to marry young is not a problem only in Afghanistan.
Then she tackles the myth that feminists are at fault for ALL the world's problems.
quote:
You know, this is like attributing the economic decline of the South to the destruction of slavery. It’s true enough, but misses the point entirely, which is that an economic system based on oppression must collapse out of just basic decency. Keeping women in familial servitude served a lot of men very well, and there’s no doubt that there’s going to be some moaning that this privilege is fast fading, but it’s a matter of priorities.[b] Women’s rights trumps men’s comforts and pleasures,[/b] and all the hysterical language describing the latter as “broken families” doesn’t change that.
Unfortunately, men are not going to give up their comforts and pleasures, for woman's equality without a fight and this is exemplified by our current misogynist government defunding Status of Women programs and giving 10 million dollars to [i]father's rights programs[/i].
[url=http://www.breadnroses.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21728&postdays=0&postor...
quote:
Check out the reasons for the funding cuts to feminist organizations in this country and why the Dept of Justice has quietly earmarked ten million to the father rights orgs...
Wed, 2008-01-02 12:15
#3
quote:
giving 10 million dollars to father's rights programs
I have painfully dragged myself through that BNR thread - ain't we polite here in comparison? - and haven't found the evidence for that dreadful piece of news. Can someone provide it, please? Thanxxx
Wed, 2008-01-02 12:49
#4
remind
Martin it comes from NBCD and those at BNR are no more rude than those here at babble. And frankly, your comments otherwise are affronting and perhaps indeed sexist.
quote:
If anyone plans on researching feminism they should also research their influence in the social engineering of this country and the writings of Erin Prizzy and our own Senator Ann Cooles. Look up Bill C-22 and the disgusting tactics of the National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) along with the Status of Women Canada. See for yourself how the SWC and their feminist doctrines construct the educational criteria for the National Judicial Institute. Check out the reasons for the funding cuts to feminist organizations in this country and why the Dept of Justice has quietly earmarked ten million to the father rights orgs.You should be grateful that a compromise was established and sustained to extenuate feminist and women issues. Your mission was accomplished to validate, in your mind, the superior stand. But, it just wasn’t enough. Greed comes in too many flavors.
Maybe you and your comrades should plan a Canadian Feminist Blog Award, solely excluding everyone from the category unless there are feminist attachments.
[url=http://nbcdipper.ca/2007/12/18/tactics/]http://nbcdipper.ca/2007/12/18/t...
Note how this person feels we women should be "grateful" and that we are "greedy" because we want equality apparently and those who call themselves progressives are supporting their misogyny! They are kidding themselves if they say they support women's equality.
Another poster calls it and them for what they arein that thread:
quote:
As for teaching a lesson in tactics and suggesting classes, live a week in the real world of women — a world of life as a second class citizen by the simple virtue of your gender, of eyes consuming your body as though it is nothing more than an object for another’s sexual pleasure, of living daily with the increased probability of experiencing violence (or of having already experienced it physically, sexually or otherwise) — you live that reality, and then you come back and tell me how I should behave.
[ 02 January 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Wed, 2008-01-02 13:21
#5
Who the hell are SUZANNE and Deanna and what pods did they sprout from? Jeez Louise these are what pass for wimmin these days? I guess they make the men feel mighty comfortable.
quote:
Now gender issues blog…can I nominate a men’s rights activist blog?
[img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2008-01-02 13:37
#6
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b] Jeez Louise these are what pass for wimmin these days? I guess they make the men feel mighty comfortable. [/b]
Yep, and here some more about the "evil that feminists do", from the pod person and not from LuLu who is pretty damn funny about it.
quote:
But Pah-raise Jeeezuz she saw the light and was saved, SAVED from her unnatural, slutty feminist ways. Can I get an “Amen”, brothers and sisters?[i]When I was a feminist, many years ago, used to think women were oppressed and victims. And like this columnist, I thought many men had it in for women-- especially smart women. A woman who raised her voice against the patriarchy was a woman setting herself to be a victim because she challenged the pecking order.[/i]
And we all know how protective men can be about their “pecking”.
[i]That's the way you think when you're a feminist: it's all about power. It's all about classifying yourself as a victim when things don't go your way.[/i]
...Girls these days! Always trying to be smart and stuff. That’s no way to catch a man.
[url=http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/2008/01/evil-that-feminists-do.html]And as long as I completely repress who I really am, I can (say it with me, people) ... “Catch myself a man!”[/url]
Edited to correct names
[ 02 January 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Wed, 2008-01-02 14:32
#7
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]CC who is pretty damn funny about it.[/b]
That's not CC, it's LuLu. She's a new recruit. She fits in well, doesn't she?
Wed, 2008-01-02 15:17
#8
remind
quote:
Originally posted by pogge:
[b]That's not CC, it's LuLu. She's a new recruit. She fits in well, doesn't she?[/b]
Oh, oops excuse me LuLu, and yes, she certainly does fit well! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
And hey pogge, Happy New Year, and I hope 2008 is a better one for ya, than 2007!
Wed, 2008-01-02 16:40
#9
quote:
So to conclude, smart women i.e. feminists = unnatural, bitter and alone. Dumb women i.e. me = married. There, that wasn’t hard, was it?
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
I love that blog!! "I'm posting pictures of my new boots all over the place"
Hahahahaha. Love it.
Wed, 2008-01-02 16:53
#10
Remind:
quote:
Martin it comes from NBCD...
OK, I thought you knew of NCBD's source for this important piece of info.
quote:
and those at BNR are no more rude than those here at babble. And frankly, your comments otherwise are affronting and perhaps indeed sexist.
OK, I never spoke of rudeness, simply expressed appreciation of what seemed (up to now) like a nicer climate here. That's "sexist"? I'll work on that insight.
Wed, 2008-01-02 17:05
#11
remind
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]OK, I never spoke of rudeness, simply expressed appreciation of what seemed (up to now) like a nicer climate here. That's "sexist"? I'll work on that insight.[/b]
Martin, what is the opposite of polite? Exactly!
Also, you stated you painfully drug yourself through that thread, that thread was full of chagrin at the sexist actions of supposedly progressive men. To believe that chagrin, expressed by feminists at patriarchy, is impolite, is IMV sexist.
ETA: Having thought further about your words above, I will add, you really do need to work on that insight Martin, as it seems you do recognize the automatic male privilege lense through which you view things.
Example being your use of [i](up to now)[/i] is really a comment that says; "how dare I remove you from your comfort zone and cause you displeasure". Which itself is a perfect example of why I started this thread, to illuminate: how many--not all--self-professed as progressive, men on the left, automatically are sexist in their responses to the female gender and their actions striving for equality in thought and action, and that it is just not those men on the right.
And that is saying nothing about the condesending remark about the "climate being nicer here", as if women should be worried about what men think about the climate of forum/blog discussion, and whether we are being to in your face, or not. In particular, you are making a negative comment about how women are behaving, and it being not to your liking, in their own home.
That you added all that supefluous shite, its meaning and what was contained within it, when all you were doing was asking for a source link, is what is sexist. And so of course, is the fact that you feel that calling you on it, and making your world less comfortable here should be a consideration of mine.
[ 02 January 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Wed, 2008-01-02 17:15
#12
OK, I see and fully appreciate your point, thank you. I should have been more precise: what I considered impolite was the way some people were allowed to trash feminists for doubting these allegedly progressive men - but I see how it could be read as referring to all posters.
Re: "Example being your use of (up to now) is really a comment that says; "how dare I remove you from your comfort zone and cause you displeasure"."
Again, it can be read that way, yes, but I am used to confrontation and I didn't mean to demand comforts or put you down, just acknowledge the change of tone.
Thanks for keeping me honest.
(I'll contact NBDC for her source as I plan to use this info against father-rightists.)
BTW, here is a great resource against those jism-worshippers: [url=http://www.thelizlibrary.org]The Liz Library[/url]
[ 02 January 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Wed, 2008-01-02 18:23
#13
remind
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]OK, I see and fully appreciate your point, thank you. I should have been more precise: what I considered impolite was the way some people trashed feminists for doubting these allegedly progressive men. [/b]
Oh really?
You will have to provide me with an example from BnR of that occuring, as I do not believe I read any comments in that thread, by men denigrating the feminists at BnR for doubing these allegedly progressive men. Unless you are referencing the quoted snippets provided there from other sites.
If so, it was an odd way to word it, as quoted snippets from other places do not constitute impoliteness in a forum tone.
quote:
[b](I'll contact NBDC for her source as I plan to use this info against father-rightists.)[/b]
If you look at the link, I believe it is a poster at NBCD who provided that information.
Here is a link to where many men on the right appear to get their lies and nonsense from:
[url=http://fathersforlife.org/feminism/toc.htm]http://fathersforlife.org/fem...
Also, you may find what you are looking for at this site:
[url=http://victoria.tc.ca/Community/MensCentre/canada.htm]http://victoria.tc...
Wed, 2008-01-02 18:37
#14
Yes, really... and you read the situation right, I was thinking of these snippets of male memorabilia being quoted and others I read on NBDC (not BNR).
I am quite a foreigner to the blogosphere and had never heard of those BNR and NBDC blogs before so I'm still trying to figure out who is what.
I went and saw that the source for that ten million $ figure was "runner", but I am not holding my breath waiting for credible feedback fron someone who trashes NAWL and feminists the way he(?) does.
Thanks for the cues to the opposition's websites!
Wed, 2008-01-02 19:43
#15
remind
Martin, for future reference, BnR is a feminist forum, not a blog. Though some feminists there have blogs of their own. And everything there is from a feminist position.
Here is another website that you may find information from.
[url=http://dawn.thot.net/rwoc_watch.html]http://dawn.thot.net/rwoc_watch.htm...
and here is another about Bill C22 that the Harper government is now moving on, after of course taking away the court challenges program
[url=http://www.owjn.org/custody/c-22.htm]http://www.owjn.org/custody/c-22.ht...
and here is another that may have links to the governments financial outlays.
[url=http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/womencanngo.htm]http://www.canadia...
And you should take a gander at the Dept of Justice's web site at this link below, that I found stumbling around their site looking for programs they fund. One would think you were at the American Dept of Justice site. Seriously mind blowing, and I mean WTF?
[url=http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/pub/CSR-2001-1/part3_04.html]http://w...
And do have a look though their Parenting after Divorce web site, it has all sorts of useful information and statistics relating to misogynist acts against women. But if indeed they were funding a male oriented program it would most likely be through this program.
[url=http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/pad/]http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/pad/[...
For example this statement of theirs:
quote:
A large number of Canadians have been critical of the terms custody and access because in their view:the terms encourage too many parents to focus on their rights rather than on their responsibilities and what is best for their children;
and the terms promote the idea of a "winner" and a "loser" who have fought a custody "battle".
Under the proposed reforms, the terms custody and access will be eliminated for the purposes of the Divorce Act. A new model based on parental responsibilities will be created. Removing the 'win/lose' connotations will contribute to reducing levels of parental conflict and stress. The new approach used in the Act and in legal proceedings will help parents to focus on their most important obligation - making sure their children receive the care they need.
is highly problematic mainly because it is in the hands of the Harper government and it indicates that the measures taken may well be more male focused.
[url=http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/pad/about/#serv]http://canada.justice....
[ 02 January 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Wed, 2008-01-02 20:05
#16
OK, I think we're in sync. Thanks for the additional info - thank Goddess the Harperites are still in minority!
Regarding the OWJN website, I am a long-time collaborator of theirs on family law issues. Indeed a brief I wrote with a p-f colleague about these issues is up on their website: [url=http://www.owjn.org/custody/dufres-e.htm]Montreal Men Against Sexism brief on proposed custody&access reforms[/url]
Wed, 2008-01-02 20:58
#17
remind
Martin, thanks for the link to your presentation and for your awareness.
Wed, 2008-01-02 21:40
#18
remind
Dave over at TGB, takes on the lies about feminism, that some men seem to ascribe to:
quote:
Feminism hasn't created socio-economic inequalities. Over the course of centuries, feminism, which didn't start with the end of WW2 or with the cancellation of Leave It To Beaver, has always benefited society. Feminism has the effect of highlighting the worst of social ills and correcting them for women, men, children and sometimes, animals. A British soldier of today would still be living the life of his 18th Century antecedent if it hadn't been for a feminist....it has always been male dominion which the men have sought to retain. Feminism threatens that and that alone.
[url=http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/]http://thegallopingbeaver.blogsp...
Wed, 2008-01-02 21:48
#19
Re: Bill C-22 on Divorce legislation reform. It died on the Chretien government agenda five years ago, even if the Dept of Justice is now trying to stream its strategic choices into its long-term policy plans.
The last three paragraphs of [url=http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/LS/372/372c22-e.htm]this web page[/url] pretty well summarize the key points of contention back then.
Thu, 2008-01-03 00:25
#20
remind
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Re: Bill C-22 on Divorce legislation reform. It died on the Chretien government agenda five years ago, even if the Dept of Justice is now trying to stream its strategic choices into its long-term policy plans.[/b]
Well then it didn't really die then did it, and they are apparently going fowarded with changes that have not even been approved by the House.
The last three paragraphs of [url=http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/LS/372/372c22-e.htm]this web page[/url] pretty well summarize the key points of contention back then.[/QB][/QUOTE]
Actually, I believe this is the keypoint of contention
quote:
On the other hand, a number of women argue that gender differences in parenting in both intact and divided families mean that they must shoulder an unequal burden for parenting, resulting in disadvantage to them at home and in the workplace. They argue that mother-custody recognizes and continues the arrangement most families adopt before separation, preventing undue disruption to the children. These women generally advocate recognition of their pre-separation parenting roles, and seek improved legal responses to the economic consequences that women and their children often experience upon separation or divorce. Also, a number of women argue that the family law system fails to protect mothers and children adequately from domestic violence.
Thu, 2008-01-03 05:41
#21
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]And hey pogge, Happy New Year, and I hope 2008 is a better one for ya, than 2007![/b]
Thanks. My single resolution for 2008 is not to get clobbered again. Happy New Year to you, too.
Thu, 2008-01-03 08:33
#22
Remind wrote:
quote:
Well then it didn't really die then did it, and they are apparently going fowarded with changes that have not even been approved by the House.
Right, and that's very bad news.
Relevant Opposition Critics in the House are, for the NDP, Irene Mathyssen (Women), [email protected] and Joe Comartin (Justice), [email protected]; for the Grits, Maria Minna (Women), [email protected] and Penny Priddy / Marlene Jennings (Justice), [email protected] and [email protected]; for the Bloc, Nicole Demers (Women), [email protected]
and Carole Freeman / Rйal Mйnard (Justice), [email protected] and [email protected].
Thu, 2008-01-03 09:53
#23
[url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004056658_webdivorceatt.... Supreme Court Leaves Poor Mothers at Mercy of Rich Fathers in Custody Cases[/url]
Supreme Court rules against rights to an attorney in divorce/custody case
By Jonathan Martin
Seattle Times staff reporter
December 8, 2007
In a case that could have had a huge financial impact, the state Supreme Court today rejected a Snohomish County woman's claim that she had a constitutional right to an attorney appointed at public expense in her divorce case.
The woman, Brenda L. King, lost primary custody of her two children to her ex-husband during a 2006 divorce trial in which he had a lawyer and she could not afford one. A Snohomish County judge denied King's request for a new trial, and she appealed on the grounds that the state Constitution guarantees a divorce lawyer for the indigent in the same way it does in criminal proceedings.
The 7-2 decision, written by Justice Charles W. Johnson, rejected King's argument, but it suggested the state Legislature should consider helping the poor with legal aid in divorces because "wise public policy" may require higher standards than "those minimally tolerable under the Constitution."
The case drew no less than eight amicus curiae briefs, most of them in support of granting indigent divorce lawyers, including the Northwest Women's Law Center and a group of retired state judges. The state Attorney General supported the argument by King's husband, Michael King. (...)
Thu, 2008-01-03 10:06
#24
Martin, thank you for this case from Seattle, but I thought the point under discussion was changes to Canadian law concerning child custody.
quote:
Wash. Supreme Court Leaves Poor Mothers at Mercy of Rich Fathers in Custody Cases
A sexist sentence.
Thu, 2008-01-03 10:14
#25
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b][url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004056658_webdivorceatt.... Supreme Court Leaves Poor Mothers at Mercy of Rich Fathers in Custody Cases[/url][/b]
Although I’ve not read the briefs or the court’s opinion (they are not linked to in the news article), it may be more accurate to say that the [b][i]state’s constitution[/b][/i] and the [b][i]state’s legislature[/b][/i] leaves poor mothers at the mercy of rich fathers. If neither the state constitution nor the state’s statutes provide for a right to representation in these cases, then the court cannot create that right and it is the responsibility of the legislature to create that right.
[ 03 January 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]
Thu, 2008-01-03 10:30
#26
remind
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]Martin, thank you for this case from Seattle, but I thought the point under discussion was changes to Canadian law concerning child custody.[/b]
No 500_apples that was not the point of this thread, it is just one of many aspects to it.
quote:
[b]A sexist sentence.[/b]
and how is that a sexist statement 500_apples?
Thu, 2008-01-03 10:38
#27
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b] and how is that a sexist statement 500_apples?[/b]
It's technically a ruling on two spouses where one is poorer than the other. It is not in fact true that the wife is poorer than the husband 100% of the time, and using wife-husband or mother-father interchangeably with poorer-richer is completely sexist and offensive.
Thu, 2008-01-03 10:43
#28
remind
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]It's technically a ruling on two spouses where one is poorer than the other. It is not in fact true that the wife is poorer than the husband 100% of the time, and using wife-husband or mother-father interchangeably with poorer-richer is completely sexist and offensive.[/b]
Really? You apparently need to further your education then, and no frankly it is not sexist, nor indeed is it offensive.
Thu, 2008-01-03 11:05
#29
Pay no mind to Apples, Remind. Reverse sexism and all that.
No, Apples, not all fathers are rich. In fact, most aren't. But most fathers are much better off financially than their spouses. When divorce comes around, who do you think the biggest losers are financially? The women are. Not only do they have (usually) the sole responsibility for every day raising of the child, they also take a hit in the workplace and almost every other social arena. Men, on the other hand, actually do better financially after a divorce.
But I'm sure you knew this, and just wanted any old excuse to post reverse sexism tripe.
Thu, 2008-01-03 11:18
#30
I'm trying to understand this.
Your point is that it is fair to generalize men as rich and women as poor because most men earn more than most women. But the validity of a generalization depends on how it is being used.
What is the necessity of associating sex with income level in this? I could technically be as accurate in writing: "Decision leaves poor short spouses at mercy of rich tall spouses" because tall people generally earn more than short people (with or without controlling for sex).
If the generalization doesn't serve a purpose, then it is simply stereotyping. In that case I think the sexism complaint is valid. You don't even have to call it 'reverse' sexism, because stereotyping women as poor is not exactly kind.
[ 03 January 2008: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]
Thu, 2008-01-03 11:32
#31
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b] Reverse sexism and all that.No, Apples, not all fathers are rich. In fact, most aren't. But most fathers are much better off financially than their spouses. When divorce comes around, who do you think the biggest losers are financially? The women are. Not only do they have (usually) the sole responsibility for every day raising of the child, they also take a hit in the workplace and almost every other social arena. Men, on the other hand, actually do better financially after a divorce.
But I'm sure you knew this, and just wanted any old excuse to post reverse sexism tripe.[/b]
Yes, I concur, that some men don't get it, are examples of them seeing/believing that their pleasures and comforts, trump women's and children's equality rights.
Thu, 2008-01-03 11:32
#32
This is an important topic, and I don't want to see it descend into nitpicking around Apples disingenuous post.
That there are some individual women who, due to their circumstances will enter into divorce and other family law situations from a position of power is probably true. So what. That women generally don't enjoy such power, and that their relative disadvantage is a serious social issue, I take as a given due to an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. Generally men can afford the most lawyerin', and use that to an injust advantage.
500 Apples you are definitly one such person who may benifit more from reading the feminist forums than posting on it. I'm not specilically kicking you out yet, but stop with the distracting quibbles.
Thu, 2008-01-03 11:53
#33
It is the fact that fathers very rarely take up the primary caretaker role in heterosexual couples that makes it deeply unfair that the extra income/earning power they accumulate by staying away from unpaid work allows them to trump primary caretakers' rights by litigating - or merely threatening to - when they see fit.
And U.S. dynamics are unfortunately extremely relevant to Canadian women's rights. Patriarchy is global.
Thu, 2008-01-03 12:09
#34
Further to my above post:
500 Apples and Sven, I have a fairly disctinct recollection of both you guys being tossed from the feminism forum for good at one point, and possibly more than once. Sven, while I recognise that your above post is in fact merely a point of clarification, I'm 90% sure neither of you are supposed to be here.
Could you please not post until Michelle and I can get our heads together and discuss.
Thanks
Fri, 2008-01-04 05:03
#35
I concur. Sven and 500 Apples need to stay out of the feminism forum from now on. Sven has been asked many more times than once, and he argues it every time, and I'm sure he'll argue it this time, but if it wasn't absolutely crystal clear before, then consider this to be the absolutely crystal clear request.
[ 04 January 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Fri, 2008-01-04 05:59
#36
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Sven has been asked many more times than once, and he argues it every time, and I'm sure he'll argue it this time, but if it wasn't absolutely crystal clear before, then consider this to be the absolutely crystal clear request.[/b]
If you recall, oldgoat gave me a two-week "vacation" many, many months ago. I "served my time" but that later morphed into an intractable belief that he banned me from the feminism forum.
Since then, please point to something I've written that warrants being banned from the feminism forum. The last time this was discussed, Michelle conceded that she couldn't point to anything specifically but that there was a "consensus" that I was unwelcome here.
A "consensus" of whom?
And, more importantly, a consensus [b][i]because of what...specifically?[/b][/i]
Please answer both of those two questions in good faith, Michelle.
Fri, 2008-01-04 06:00
#37
No. Stay out. Period. Or you can stop posting on babble entirely.
Fri, 2008-01-04 06:04
#38
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]No. Stay out. Period. Or you can stop posting on babble entirely.[/b]
I'm disappointed in that, Michelle. It is a genuine request for an explanation. It really is. I've been a relatively long time member of babble and I think I deserve a better answer than that.
Fri, 2008-01-04 06:06
#39
You've had so many answers on this subject that it tires me. I only work four hours a week. I'm not going to spend two of them hunting for the million times in the past that we've discussed this.
You have made yourself unwelcome in the feminism so many times in the past. You've been asked to stay out of many, many threads because of your baiting routine. Just stay out of the feminism forum from now on. You're not welcome.
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=001280&p...'s the last time.[/url]
[ 04 January 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Fri, 2008-01-04 06:13
#40
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]You've been asked to stay out of many, many threads because of your baiting routine.[/b]
Why do you characterize my posts as a "baiting routine" only with respect to the Feminism Forum?
ETA: I don't write any differently here than I do in a normal post.
[ 04 January 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]
Fri, 2008-01-04 06:32
#41
Sven, take it to private email or rabble reactions if you feel you must, but stop posting here now and lets get this back on topic.
Fri, 2008-01-04 06:55
#42
A stellar example of men making their comforts the issue up and against empowered women: "Prove to me why I should take my foot off your throat..."
Fri, 2008-01-04 06:56
#43
Not helpful, Martin, or fair either since he can't respond. Did you not see oldgoat ask people to get back to the subject matter instead of discussing Sven? That includes you.
Fri, 2008-01-04 07:33
#44
OK. I did feel it addressed the thread subject - and a pattern, not anyone in particular - but you're right.
Sat, 2008-01-05 12:07
#45
remind
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]It is the fact that fathers very rarely take up the primary caretaker role in heterosexual couples that makes it deeply unfair that the extra income/earning power they accumulate by staying away from unpaid work allows them to trump primary caretakers' rights by litigating - or merely threatening to - when they see fit.
And U.S. dynamics are unfortunately extremely relevant to Canadian women's rights. Patriarchy is global.[/b]
Usually when they see fit, is when it is a power and control thing that destroyed the relationship in the first place. They will do what it takes to keep that control.
The unpaid work they are freed from, is a separate issue to the power and control one.
Sat, 2008-01-05 13:16
#46
Remind:
quote:
... The unpaid work they are freed from, is a separate issue to the power and control one.
Separate, yes, but linked (at least according to feminist materialists such as Christine Delphy). Isn't it male power & control that allows men to reject care duties, that makes it cost-efficient for the wife to become the stay-at-home parent rather than work at substandard salaries in the jobs she is not harrassed out of, etc.?
[ 05 January 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Sat, 2008-01-05 13:38
#47
remind
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Remind: Separate, yes, but linked (at least according to feminist materialists such as Christine Delphy). Isn't it male power & control that allows men to reject care duties, that makes it cost-efficient for the wife to become the stay-at-home parent rather than work at substandard salaries in the jobs she is not harrassed out of, etc.?[/b]
Okay, I see where you are coming from, I was going more towards those men whio must control absolutely every moment of the wife's life, and who batter to keep them in line, and then stalk, and harass them when they leave the relationship.
I guess it is a sliding spectrum of power and control, eh?!
Sat, 2008-01-05 15:34
#48
remind
In respect to the growing angst, by men, against feminism and those striving women's equality, and it seems to be that they're, the men of this world, perceiving a threat to there privilege, and that after years of their destroying feminism, or trying to, that they realize it is again gaining strength, and relevance, thus there seems to be a conserted, beyond the religious fundies in America/Canada, to again discredit, defame, and denigrate feminist effort.
These 2 items came to my attention through BnR, h/t to those there who found them and I wish to rebutt them, or rather their premises within.
quote:
Church needs to ignore feminism
Regarding the role of women vis-а-vis special offices in His instituted Church, the Lord Jesus declares, through His Apostle Paul: "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man" (I Timothy 2:12).Christ does not permit women as ministers, elders or deacons (church offices with 'authority')...
Therefore, all women office bearers (as well as all unfaithful male office bearers) fall under Scripture's condemnation as hirelings and false shepherds, those who run without being sent by Christ...Irish Presbyterianism should stop following modern feminism and political correctness and return to its Westminster standards and the God-breathed Scriptures.
Yep, so we have a preacher spouting, as if it were truth, 3rd hand information that is 2000 years old, originating supposedly from someone, who self admittedly did not receive direct teachings, from a myth named Jesus, as we cannot prove Jesus existed, stating that Jesus said he would not suffer women to teach, nor have authority, over a man.
How far is this message being carried into all churches of today? Is that why we are seeing a NDP Faith and Justice Commission, and one with with 1 women perhaps participating on the steering committee? And why we hear Blaikie, stating that "secularists" do not have the answers? Is fundamentalist secularism the new religious catch phrase for feminism?
And God breathing scripture? How about man breathing scripture?
[url=http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/letters/article3304382.ece]There is no "light" in us women[/url]
Now let's move along from Church leaders advocating getting rid of feminism and move along to those who teach criminology/justice.
quote:
Feminism Means Never Having to Say you’re SorryTwo years ago, during our annual peer evaluation, a feminist professor suggested (via e-mail) that I may have falsified information in my annual productivity report. She claimed I had listed an article as “in print” without placing any re-prints in my “supporting documents” folder. A few minutes later, she wrote back admitting she had misread my report. I had listed the article as “in press,” which meant that the absence of reprints was simply a function of the fact that the article had not yet been printed.
The incident did not surprise me. Feminists are generally more confrontational in emails than they are in person – unless, of course, they are with a large group of feminists. They also approach orgasm every time they think they have caught a man doing something wrong. But, although it was unsurprising, the incident was certainly enlightening.
oh fuck, what a misogynist, as if something like that never happens, or has happened, between male professors and others,eh?! Of course it has, moreover she realized her mistake with in a "few minutes" as admitted by him, but apparently that wasn't good enough for him. He has to turn it into a feminist bash of the general sort. Then to support his bash, trying to make it appear as if it is not misogyny, he goes on to reiterate another ancedotal stroy of his where a feminist got credit when using the same first edition, twice. [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
But of course his 2 stories are 7 years apart, and that fact seems not to register in his lack wit mind. Notwithstanding his 3rd story now includes race and feminism.
quote:
More recently, feminist Rosemary DePaolo appeared in an ad misrepresenting her accomplishments as UNC-Wilmington Chancellor...Of course, despite the obvious deception, nothing has happened to the chancellor and nothing ever will because she is a feminist. And we all know that feminists are held to a lower standard than men because, curiously, we think that is a good way to end sexism.
Yes, right, feminists are held to a lower standard alright, men have never ever falsified anything, twisted things in their favour, made hasty accusations, and we all indeed they are perfect, starting of course with Conrad Black.
Truth, in fact, it is quite the opposite, feminists are held to a higher standard than men, as he so quite obviously exposes. Then the idiot goes on to exploit the Olsen twin Lance Armstrong realtionship juxpositioning it and feminists speaking out against, with abortion's received by 12 year olds, to try to point to feminist hypocrisy.
And yes people, this man teaches criminology at a university, I hope the outrage gets him fired, as it should.
[url=http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MikeSAdams/2008/01/01/feminism_means_..., townhall link, but the dude writing the column teaches at a unversity[/url]