No Catchfire, I can't say that I agree with you. It's more like you swung right by tired and stale, and missed it by a mile. If it would be of any assistance going forward though, maybe renaming the forum to make it more clear as to what version of feminism you mean? That might have been useful all along because we could have avoided your fully expected, one dimensional approach to these concerns for years on end. The explicit fact of the matter is that for years, you have allowed this forum to be used, not to advance discussion, but as a vehicle for a few who are merely interested in leveling oblique and direct attacks - with your example being representative of the direct - at other contributors to the board. What occurs is a constant switching between direct attacks and accusations against other posters, and plainly obvious individual attacks against members of the board through the use of generalized remarks pertaining to the conditions for women in this society. It's all about put downs and scoring against the people here, not about critiquing at large. We're the human dart boards. It's total nonsense that you're privileging here. People stand up to it here because this is where it's allowed to take place. It wouldn't be conducive to decorum if, in the forum on racism members of the board were being called racist, but apparently in another context, generalized and specific misogynist accusations against other members of the board gets the green light. Ready, set, go. Everyone else, shut up about it.
Struggle against "masculinistes" / "mens' rights" activists
This "backlash culture" might be more relevant to that thread about gamergate, but we are talking here now:
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/15/sarah_silverman_pushes_back_against_cree...
In a recent interview with Vanity Fair promoting her Toronto International Film Festival film “I Smile Back,” Sarah Silverman addressed the issue raised by comics like Bill Maher and Jerry Seinfeld who accuse political correctness of ruining stand-up comedy.
“To a degree, everyone’s going to be offended by something, so you can’t just decide on your material based on not offending anyone,” she explained. “But, I do think it’s important, as a comedian, as a human, to change with the times. To change with new information… I think it’s a sign of being old when you’re put off by that.”
Kitten - ha!
And "feminazis"; yes, it is an odd term, considering that the Nazi role for women was Children, Church and Kitchen. (Aryan women, that is)...
www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/feminazi-go-to-term-for-trolls-out...
lies as truth.
eta: meaning the caling of women who are strong feminazis. when actual women who were nazis are described above. my mom knows a Hitler baby. i've always found it interesting.
By a Hitler baby, do you mean a Lebensborn?
Their role for non-Aryan women was, of course, death. While overall survivors were roughly equal in gender (slightly more men survived, because they were seen as more fit for slave labour, and because young women not of the very young or elderly cohort murdered upon arrival were often either pregnant or mothers of young children, but probably more Jewish girls could be hidden, as they weren't circumcized) for the above-mentioned reasons, women were more likely to be eliminated upon arrival.
The proclaimed "modernity" of fascist movements was very male; speed, cars, planes, war machines. They did co-opt some socialist ideas such as clinics and spaces for mothers and babies, to win over women. I've studied this more in Italy than in Germany (and not at all in Spain or Portugal, alas).
Well the Italians invented the modern version of it really, particularly its imagery. Hitler copied their style (in some cases not that well, if you look at the ridiculous uniforms some of them, like Bormann, wore).
And yes, the term is as absurd as it is outrageous, when you consider what the real Nazis did.
By a Hitler baby, do you mean a Lebensborn?
i didn't know the name for them was Lebensborn but i looked it up and yes she is...
her mother was an young 'Aryan' woman and her unknown dad was in the SS. met her often when i was very young and i just remember her being older than my mom, her son is a friend of mom and dads, but looking like her son's sister and maybe the most beautiful woman i've seen to this day even.
I think we need an MRA subforum,any questioning of attacks upon MRAs is not allowed in this subforum nor questioning of the most popular feminist othodoxy on this forum. Or even a free speech free for all forum.
While there are some really good articles on avoiceformen, there is alot of bullshit too, and I don't care for the founder. Dispite being a useful resource at times, its founder is off his rocker.
There are many reasonible MRAs.
No, there are not. If you identify as an MRA, you are perforce anti-woman. They may give some lip service to equality, but such lip service is canceled out quickly by everything else they say and represent. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
You keep talking about "popular feminist orthodoxy" - honestly, there is a great deal of variance in the feminist movement and there is no one preferred "orthodoxy" (in actuality, there isn't any orthodoxy at all, unless it's the notion that women should be fully emancipated and equal to men). Not even in this forum. The only real requirement here is that it be a space where feminism - again, the notion that people should not be discriminated against based on sex - does not have to be defended.
The problem here is that every time you bring MRAs into the discussion, it devolves into having to defend the existence of feminism and/or explanations of what feminism is or is not. It's counterproductive.
You can discuss MRAs anywhere else on the board. You don't need to do it here.
I think we need an MRA subforum,any questioning of attacks upon MRAs is not allowed in this subforum nor questioning of the most popular feminist othodoxy on this forum.
Clearly you demonstrate the issue yourself. You don't say that we need an MRA subforum to lobby for prisoner safety (assuming prison rape disproportionately affects men). You don't say that we need an MRA subforum to talk about workplace accidents (assuming workplace accidents disproportionaly affect men). You don't say that we need an MRA subforum to discuss suicide prevention (assuming suicide disproportionately affects men). You don't say we need an MRA subforum to discuss equality in family law.
No, you say we need an MRA subforum to talk about attacks on MRAs and to question feminist orthodoxy. That all says a lot.
i thought brachina was told to stay out of this thread?
Yes, that is the case.
Brachina was asked, more than once, to stay out of the feminist forum. I'll try to remember to reinstate him in a few days. Sorry, everyone.
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3