Hard News: Feminist as crazy old man
468 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 19 Newer→ Last
-
The Urban Camouflage of that Pink DPM (Disruptive Pattern Material) will hide the figure of those wearing it.
But then I always thought Trelise Cooper designed for women of a certain age.
The Guys one seems to just be a throw back to the privious uniform by Barbara Lee.
I do hope there is a little more variety in styles, for all my friends still flying.
-
she has as much right to express her opinion as vociferously as the overt gays and trannies in expressing their right to sexual freedom.
False equivalence. They are not demanding that everyone be like them. They are not denigrating those who are not like them. And they are also not using the loudhailer of a national newspaper column.
What's really irking you?
-
They are not demanding that everyone be like them.
GLBT's do demand in legislation that everyone have the same attitude like them and of course there is no denigrating of those who are not like them going on here using the loudhailer of a national current affairs blog...is there ?
so how do you think the new anti-hate speech laws in the west is gonna pan out ?
-
Gods, okay, my total bad. I didn't realise that and looking back I really should have. I'll go off and make the appropriate sacrifices to regain my ability to parse for sarcasm.
I'd still call it a satire fail.
-
GLBT's do demand in legislation that everyone have the same attitude like them
By the same 'attitude', do you mean allowing other people to be themselves? Not being allowed to have a go at someone because they're one of those filthy breeders? Only hiring people like 'us'?
You are right that there's tension around this, especially with greater diversity of cultures here now, some with strong beliefs about what's right and wrong and a history of insisting that their view be imposed on everyone. My colonial ancestors were the same.
Hopefully we are growing out of that. As a young nation we have a chance to do this better than anywhere else in the world. But only if we avoid stereotyped thinking and ignorant name-calling.
Who's denigrating you here for who you are rather than the quality of your expression?
-
(Ladies - and gentlemen - put yer feet up,
Arrrgh! The Alien Lizard returns! He sheds his skin? I can return to the garden.Welcome back :)
-
Moreover, declaring that sexuality is and must be a political choice is just nuts.
Isn't it, though? Those in the ex-gay movement have made a political choice out of their sexuality, as have the legion of conservative preachers and politicians who've been caught on the down-low after having publicly campaigned against homosexuality. Denial of your innate feelings is a political act that lots of people make (also in areas other than sexuality). It sounds like a miserable choice to me, and one we shouldn't force, but that doesn't mean political elements don't come into it. I don't know whether this is what Bindel argues or not, but there's a middle ground between 0% political choice to who you sleep with, and 100% political choice.
but she doesn't get to dictate if and why the rest of the world chooses to have sex with the gender(s) of people they have sex with,
No, she doesn't. How could one random columnist achieve such an end? Saying what she thinks about it isn't the same as being in the position to do something about it. Power is the key. I'm not threatened by her making judgements over my sexuality because she can't do anything about it. I get more wound up by the conservative sex police because they want the law to back them up, and they have a long history of using various coercive ways to enforce their views. We're a long way from The Gate to Women's Country here. I think a lot of men are taken aback by lesbian separatism in the same way there's always some guy complaining about the Women's space in the student union building - not that they particularly want to go there, but the thought of not being allowed to crosses their sense of unexamined privilege. It's not something that floats my boat, but it does have a certain logical consistency to it. More so than the men's rights guys whose misogyny exceeds only their homophobia.
And, quite frankly, if you don't find her utterly disgusting attitude to transsexuals offensive, I don't know what you would. The dehumanisation in her description is chilling and horrific.
Hadn't read it, but what I've seen summarised here does sound horrible. Again, power is important - transgender people face kinds of discrimination that cisgendered people don't, and don't need that to be stoked by groups who could be useful allies. I don't know enough about trans issues to make any more considered comment, but I don't think there's any honour to be gained by any political movement in finding a group further down the rungs of privilege to dump on.
-
Okay, obviously a sensitive issue for me, but I'm finding the deliberate trolling on this issue across three different threads pretty offensive, and obstructive to actual discussion.
GLBT's do demand in legislation that everyone have the same attitude like them
"I did not previously know that" Is it true, or just an opinion?
I believe this is the part of the Vast Gay Conspiracy called Human Rights legislation.
-
Which (again) is not insisting that everyone be GLBT, just that you don't go treating anyone worse because of their sexuality. Or their ethnicity, for that matter.
-
By the same 'attitude', do you mean allowing other people to be themselves? Not being allowed to have a go at someone because they're one of those filthy breeders? Only hiring people like 'us'?
we're not growing out of that ?. we'll evolve genetically thru some as yet unknown trigger release and expand our consciousness to be more tolerant, less hateful. making more stupid laws to keep lawyers in business isnt gonna hasten that process or make us 'grow'. as though laws make any difference to what we choose to do like when it was illegal to be gay.
and i was talking more about denigrating the author but the implication of trolling by someone who cant even differentiate between spoof and troof and is so blinkered by her own attitudes towrds sex comes close:)
-
Human rights laws are hardly new and not unique to this country. And I'd rather work together now to be less hateful than wait for some genetic miracle.
-
Translation: 'how dare you legally impel people not to be total assholes to each other?'
we're not growing out of that ?
Being better to underprivileged groups doesn't just naturally happen because privileged people decide to be magnanimous. It takes activism on the part of the underprivileged people, sometimes for centuries. It's not like LBJ suddenly had an evolutionary brainwave in 1964 and passed the Civil Rights Act. 'O HAI: YOU CAN HAZ RIGHTS NOW.'
-
So to rephrase, you think legislation intended to protect gay rights is only going to benefit lawyers, and at some point humanity is just going to evolve to the point where the universal consciousness will click over towards love and tolerance?
EDIT: Hiveminded by others who've responded better, but I'll let this stand for the sake of it...
-
And I'd rather work together now to be less hateful than wait for some genetic miracle.
i'd rather not waste my time on lost causes and trust that we as humans are evolving to a higher conscious state sooner rather than later without invoking miraculous divine intervention.
Being better to underprivileged groups doesn't just naturally happen because privileged people decide to be magnanimous. It takes activism on the part of the underprivileged people, sometimes for centuries.
it does happen naturally if you view it in the grand scheme of things rather than 'the biased history of the west' but having shit enshrined in law still wont change attitudes bred from ignorance and punishng people for it wont make them change for the better, if anything the opposite holds true.
and WTF is that marine technology line about ?
-
3410,
Okay, obviously a sensitive issue for me, but I'm finding the deliberate trolling on this issue across three different threads pretty offensive, and obstructive to actual discussion.
+1 vote for bouncing the fool.
-
So to rephrase, you think legislation intended to protect gay rights is only going to benefit lawyers, and at some point humanity is just going to evolve to the point where the universal consciousness will click over towards love and tolerance?
laws that discriminate against people are abhorrent. get rid of them as we have done but to substitute laws protecting rights is to swing the pendulum as much to the exrtreme left as before. they don't work. it didnt in the treaty and it doesnt where it interferes with capitalist expansion. if its in the best interest of lawyers to make law suits and command consultancy fees using a gay agenda then thats the benefit but it hardly translates to the underclass.
if you dont think we're evolving then we're de-evolving cos we're not in stasis, so it's inevitable that the next stage wil be a form of unlocking the potential of our brains, expanding consciousness and all that entails blah blah blah...
-
I agree that law is not the whole answer. And that's because it's not just laws that discriminate, it's various ways things are set up and fundamentally the behaviour of people towards others.
WTF is that marine technology line about?
Seems like a fair question, and I'd likewise appreciate hearing more detail from Steven about that.
-
lets not forget how advanced we were in heavenly navigation while the northern tribe elites were still part of the flat earth society and now we're to be told 'by law' what our attitudes towards sexuality should be and what we can say about it ? fuck off, y'all dont have the right.
have you not heard of our 'night dances' which were outlawed by the missionaries in favour of their position:)
ya aint sayin nuthin slick to an oilcan...
-
and of course there is no denigrating of those who are not like them going on here using the loudhailer of a national current affairs blog...is there ?
If the best you can bring a debate is that sort of passive-aggressive snot, maybe you should take a break from it. Seriously.
-
yeah thanx for the christianity
i now cant tell whether my attitude towards sex is shaped more by that, by poly tradition or all that american hiphop i grew up on
then again maybe i've just activated some aberrant gene:)
-
I'm still waiting until we just evolve past this argument to peace and tolerance without having to get into the messy details of discrimination against minorities.
Wouldn't that just so be nice? Fluoro-blue kaftans for everyone!
-
3410,
now we're to be told 'by law' what our attitudes towards sexuality should be and what we can say about it ? fuck off, y'all dont have the right.
Jesus! The 'law' doesn't do either of those things, you twit.
-
lets not forget how advanced we were in heavenly navigation while the northern tribe elites were still part of the flat earth society and now we're to be told 'by law' what our attitudes towards sexuality should be and what we can say about it ? fuck off, y'all dont have the right.
I get that you have a hangup -- as Emma said, it's sprayed across three threads now. But perhaps you could consider taking it somewhere else, because it's really not helping.
-
Arguing about feminism is inherently more difficult for men.
Me.
how about we drop the facade and stop pretending we're nothing more than cavemen with laptops, one step above the animal world.
Me again.
Unfortunately, despite the fact that it is possible to become insanely educated about feminism, most men won't. But they will still have opinions on it, and could even contribute. If they don't, and can't, then their patriarchal attitudes are a self-fulfilling prophecy.
For myself, I've been surrounded by feminists most of my life. It's so automatic it's basically religious - the idea that women are equal to men was never seriously challenged in my mind until I reached adulthood, and made a mental choice to challenge my preconceptions.
To that end I very seldom find much of interest about feminism in the works by women on the subject. It basically always feels like they're talking about me, not to me. Men think this, men think that. It wasn't until I read "On The Subjugation of Women" by J S Mill that I first felt actually guilty about my attitudes to women. I recognized myself in what he was saying.
Of course feminism has moved on hugely since then. But my attitude still roughly aligns with that. I've never been convinced by "affirmative action" or its other more loaded synonyms "positive discrimination" or "reverse discrimination". The way I see it, male responsibility for feminism ends at "giving woman an equal chance", and the rest is the job of women, to seize those chances, to make good on them, and the flipside of this empowerment is taking the responsibility for failure too. I think this has happened, and continues to happen. Which actually means it's the job of women to sort out the extreme feminists, to put them in their place, to decide what position to take.
-
Fluoro-blue kaftans for everyone!
I'm sorry, that won't do: as a card-carrying member of the pro-tranny brigade, I was promised something by Trelise Cooper.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.