peace said:
Yes, you’ve nailed it on the head. Everybody is against you and we’re all drunk off our asses. These are the only reasons that anybody would ever possibly disagree with you. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the ridiculous things you say.
Peace
Okay, according to the theory set forth in my own post (which I still believe explains Peace in a nutshell), I am now prolonging Peace’s masochistic pleasure by responding to his blather.
This means that I’m the idiot here, which I fully concede, but I simply had to look at the link that Peace provided to illustrate his beef against feminists.
Here is Peace in his own inimitable style, admitting that he is indeed aware that women have been serving in the military, in fire departments and police departments for many years now.
"The fact that something was accepted, does not make it right in and by itself. E.g., the Prohibition was the law for many years and it was then repealed.
I am not for legally prohibiting women to be soldiers or firefighters. I am against double standards and double sets of laws: one for men and one for women. Right now, there is not a single law written specifically for men and women. I cannot quote all laws to prove it. I will quote one:http://law.richmond.edu/linc/adact.htm, which is the ADA. If you know of any, please quote.
Given Peace’s unreliable syntax, there is, to be sure, no way to predict what precisely he means by “there is not a single law written specifically for men and women.” That said, his remarks seem to suggest that the link, which refers to the Americans with Disabilities Act, either contains some example of a sexual double standard or bears in some other way on the issue of sexual double standards. But the link in question has absolutely nothing to do with sexual double standards: it’s been posted by a legal information group for people with cancer, and the provision in the ADA it describes is to do with protecting cancer patients from workplace discrimination. There is no mention of gender whatsoever (and, btw, no mention of genitalia). I.e. there is no connection whatever between this link and Peace’s allegation that PC feminists et.al. have secured or demanded preferential treatment for women.
(Of course, if you’re an inveterate masochistic bent on getting attention and iliciting abuse, posting this irrelevant link makes *perfect *sense.)
** “There is no law prohibiting women to do anything they want to. If FD regulations say that no one is admitted who cannot do 25 pushups, it is not because women are to be excluded. It is because the authorities want only strong individuals there, capable of handling ladders, etc. All disqualified men are not admitted either.
Yet you and your ilk want everyone to be equal, but then you want separate rules for women, i.e. you want them to be more equal.”**
Peace here asserts that I would disagree with a rule that specifies the need for any candidate, regardless of sex,to do 25 pushups to qualify for the fire department. In truth I know nothing about hiring practices for fire departments. But, as a feminist committed to equality between the sexes, this is, generally speaking, exactly the kind of policy I favor. Peace’s claim that I “want separate rules for women” is completely mistaken. Most of my friends (male and female) are feminists and none of them wants “separate rules for women.” (I should add that to desire women to be “more equal” than men is nonsensical since “equal” is, by definition, a condition in which neither “more” nor “less” applies.)
"Surprisingly, I believe that women are more equal. For instance, they may need larger bathrooms that those prickly men."
Actually, that’s not at all surprising. It would appear that by “more equal” what you mean is, deserving of special treatment (in this instance larger bathrooms). I don’t find it at all surprising that you would believe that women need special treatment; nor that I, as a feminist with a strong belief in equality between the sexes, do not believe that. It is you seems to favor double standards. As to bathrooms, I have nothing to say on the matter.
FYI, Peace, there are lots of areas of disagreement within feminist circles. Feminists do not come in one shape and size. Some people would call Camille Paglia a feminist; others would like her guts for garters.
Feminism is therefore hard to pin down. But masochism is wonderfully consistent.
Allow me to pay you the compliment of saying that you are one of the most consistent masochists I have had the opportunity to meet.
An aside to grienspace: It did actually register that Peace was not the first to say “feminazi” in this thread. But he did so very little to distance himself from the term (and seemed to enjoy bandying it about so much) that I assumed that the term had already been raised somewhere in the first thread (which I hadn’t read at that time).
You seem a reasonable enough sort of person despite your apparent belief that “PC” constitutes some kind of major social problem. As this thread isn’t directly on the topic of “PC” or “not-PC,” I’ll simply say that nothing to my mind is more overblown than the notion that a PC conspiracy is behind everything. “PC” has become such a handy pejorative that half of the time two different sides of an issue are hurling the term at each other.
peace said:
Wrong. This is what you said:
You did not state that it was only “two people.” You made a broad statement about “SDoppers” (sic) and then said that “many of them are drinking.”
You know, lying about what you said when it is so easy to just look back and actually see what you said ain’t all that bright.
So go puke all you want. But blame it on yourself.
Okay, light begins to dawn. Here is (I think) Peace’s thesis, restated by him.
I’m going to repeat Magdalene’s link from the other thread http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13252-2000Dec15.html
A Google search under “Abankwah”, the woman’s purported last name, turns up tons of stuff.
Yeah, Peace, you’re right–it looks to me like feminist organizations everywhere jumped on the bandwagon and started shouting, “Shame on you!” at Evil Uncle Sam, who wanted to throw this poor persecuted woman back to Ghana, where she would suffer unspeakable mutilations at the hands of her ignorant relatives. However, this isn’t the first time in the history of the Republic that people have jumped on a bandwagon, only to be forced to dismount somewhat sheepishly. Milli Vanilli springs to mind, for some reason. http://mrshowbiz.go.com/news/Todays_Stories/970825/8_25_97_6milli.html
Okay, granted, that was show biz and this is human rights, but still…
I’d also like to point out that, where “checking and rechecking one’s facts” is concerned, that the minute “Abankwah” tried to enter the country, she was detained by the INS. They could see that her passport had been tampered with, so they locked her up in detention. And they eventually did open what the article calls an “unprecendented” investigation into her case, which took years, just to silence their critics. Yes, the feminists were flocking around, having press conferences, but the INS was still hard at work in the background, checking and rechecking facts.
So, now we shall branch out into discussing whether the U.S. should grant asylum to people, and if so, to whom. (I don’t think it requires a separate thread. You brought it up yourself, in the quote above; I don’t think it counts as a hijack.) Are you saying, Peace, that you don’t think we should grant asylum to ANYONE, at all? Or are you saying we should only grant asylum to those people who are fleeing political persecution, not to people who are just running away from bad home situations?
My opinion is that we should let 'em all in. This is the Land of Opportunity, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Call me a hopeless romantic, but I’m proud that that’s America’s role among the nations, to be the place where people can get a fresh start, whether they’re fleeing Castro’s repressive regime or clitoral mutilation. I have a great-grandfather who fled Denmark because he made things politically rather hot for him back home, and I have 7 other great-grandfathers who came to America simply to get out of bad home situations, not politically connected at all. If they hadn’t been allowed in, I’d be shoveling snow in Prague instead of in Illinois.
peace claims to be in the US right? And he claims that English is his second language? So how did he get to be in the US?
Or is it different if you are skilled/not at risk of FGM?/in possession of money? Hmmmmmmm?
Like DDG, I’m inclined to think that Peace’s OP raised a legitimate topic for debate, but that it was very badly phrased (and no, peace, this doesn’t mean I’m agreeing with you).
If we leave aside the issue of fraud for a moment, we get back to the central question of whether being at demonstrable risk of having a major and unnecessary procedure carried out on your body against your will should in and of itself constitute grounds for the granting of asylum (the question could equally apply to women seeking asylum from enforced abortions in China).
My own country’s immigration laws are extremely unclear on issues such as this, even though they do make allowances for the risks of persecution and torture.
I would certainly like to see Australia give consideration to adding FGM to the list of criteria for which asylum is granted, but the age at which FGM is generally carried out seems to make it unlikely that many women would benefit from such a policy on our part; the majority of young women facing the prospect of FGM are unlikely to have the resources or the opportunity to negotiate their way through the maze of seeking asylum.
Mandelstam, whether due to my poor grammar or due to your anti-Peace bias, my statement re: sexual equality got misunderstood by you. I quoted the ADA as an example of a regular even-handed law (it was the first on the list).
So, if you agree with me that no special laws/rules should be created, we are in the same bed (only figuratively, of course).
I should add that to desire women to be “more equal” than men is nonsensical since “equal” is, by definition, a condition in which neither “more” nor “less” applies.)
As bad as my English grammar is, it’s not that bad. “All people are created equal, but some people are more equal” is a quote (by heart) from G. Orwell (most likely, from “Animal Farm”). This classic is often quoted in SDMB, so, I liberally paraphrased it without a reference. Sorry.
I just meant that I could see where the women might need special treatment. I think that we, as the society, are smart enough to build public toilets for them without legislating it, as we build schools for kids, only because they need them.
David, yahoo! “…many of them are drinking” was said on Christmas day! Besides, can’t you see the difference between “DRUNK” and “are drinking”? Yes or No?
I still think you are pukabale. That is, should be puked at.
All right, Ducky! It looks like you got it. Oh my, glad I am!
To finish the topic, I am not against all feminist groups. But some of them are too much and often they fight windmills.
I am against liberal admission to the U.S. not because I am mean. During the Great War many Jews perished because we did not admit them. Yet, technically speaking, Hitler persecuted Jews on ethnic grounds, not political; i.e. it was not technically different from Serbs killing Albanians or Hutus killing Tutsis. So, not everything is so simple. And if people are not killed, ‘just’ mutilated or sold into slavery?
But if we apply our civil rights standards to the rest of the world, it would be easier to just open our borders and annex it. We do not have enough room or food here for all the oppressed. Trying to help the poor guys is rarely or never successful (Haiti was big, but only partial success).
Prima, if you want to know the truth, it was political asylum for me. So, India is out of the picture.
I am for continuing the tradition and for granting political asylum. But, although I share Duck’s romanticism, I realize that that would be shear utopia and will create unhealthy rivalry. Who would you admit first: a Sudanese girl who is threatened with FGM or her cousin who is about to become enslaved? I am listening. Tell me. You are soooooo fucking smart.
So, perhaps instead of granting asylum to a few lucky ones, the gang and the rest of us should make more noise at the UN and such. I know that force is always a good argument (Yugoslavia), but sometimes a diplamatic+economic combo works (South Africa). Nobody from free South Africa is seeking asylum now.
Peace
Asmodean wrote:
You mean the one that said “We Must Deploy Troops To Jessica Linden’s Uterus Immediately”?
I don’t normally pick posts apart bit by bit, but I’m going to make an exception because there are a number of widely differing things I want to respond to.
Huh? Got a cite for that, or have I just not been paying attention? I’m always happy to be enlightened. If it is true, then it’s a terrible, terrible thing and I am ashamed of my country retroactively.
So you’re saying that you wouldn’t grant asylum today to fleeing Tutsis or Albanians? And that if you’d been living in the U.S. during the years 1933 to 1945, and if it had been up to you to decide, you wouldn’t have granted asylum to Jews fleeing the Nazis, because they weren’t fleeing “political” persecution? Wow, I’m sorry, I just have a hard time getting my mind around that concept. 
You’re saying you might grant non-political asylum to people who were fleeing ethnic persecution if they were in actual danger of losing their lives, but not if they were only in danger of being enslaved or mutilated? Again, I’m having trouble getting a handle on this. Why condemn people to this? It seems a little harsh.
This is pretty funny, because I’ve always had the impression that this–“apply[ing] our civil rights standards to the rest of the world”–has been the stated intent of the State Department’s policy ever since the Monroe Doctrine.
What? Every day we as Americans throw away enough food (perfectly good food, too, not garbage) every day from our restaurants and fast-food joints to feed I-don’t-know-offhand how many people, but it’s a lot. America isn’t living up to her potential as a agricultural powerhouse. There’s lot of marginal farm land that could be put to use growing crops, but we don’t bother, because we don’t have to.
And as for not enough room–sheesh, you must live in the crowded urban Northeast Corridor. Our here in the Midwest, we could easily fit in another 20 million people or so, no sweat.
You’re right, trying to help people sometimes just gets you kicked in the teeth. But that’s no reason to stop trying.
I’m not sure what “help” you’re talking about here, specifically. Helping with the elections a few years back? Right, sometimes democracy doesn’t always “take”, they have to keep working on it. But I don’t think it was a waste of effort. And besides, let’s not get sidetracked from “offering asylum in our country to individuals” to “interfering in other countries’ affairs”. That’s a different topic.
It wouldn’t create any rivalry at all if you were letting everybody in. Just take a number and get in line. No shoving, now.
So you’re saying that we should have a two-pronged approach to cleaning up the world? First, tighten our asylum requirements, and only allow in those few people who are truly seeking freedom from political persecution by their own goverment? And second, we should give more support to the U.N. and especially to the various U.N. peacekeeping forces worldwide, to encourage the dysfunctional countries of the world to clean up their own acts?
My problem with that is that the U.N. itself is largely ineffectual, and that U.N. peacekeeping forces worldwide don’t amount to much more than a spit in the bucket, and if the U.S. involved itself more, it would only amount to two spits in the bucket. I don’t think Yugoslavia and South Africa and and Somalia and Myanmar and Northern Ireland and Indonesia and Haiti and the Philippines and all the other countries limping along on crutches, have problems that can be solved by the U.N., or by any other outsiders. All we can do is be sympathetic and pass out the Band-Aids, and incidentally, provide a refuge, a safe haven, for those decent, ordinary people who have Had Enough and who just want to get on with their lives.
I find this difficult to believe. Got a cite for it? Something like, “INS reports applications from South Africa are down 90%”? In my experience, there’s always somebody who wants to come to America, no matter how ostensibly PC his government just got.
Peace, just for the record. I don’t have any anti-Peace bias. I bear you no ill will whatsoever. In the case in question I actually gave you more credit than you deserved. That is, I assumed that you would realize it was pointless for you to choose, at random, one of the thousands of statutes that are gender non-specific when your point seemed to be that legislation was moving towards a dangerous codification of preferential treatment. The fact that you do not offer examples of laws that are not, as you say, “even-handed” supports my point. That is, the whole idea of “PC” has been way overblown by the Rush Limbaughs of the world, and is so overused by now as to be almost meaningless. Your point about women’s toilets is rather bizarre since it relates to a question of their size–which is obviously not a point that is going to attract legislative concerns. But by now I’ve given this point far more attention, I think, than even you yourself can possibly think it deserves.
George Orwell was surely being ironic when he said “more equal” (although I cannot place the quotation); whereas your conversation on this topic so far is entirely without irony. You seem, on the one hand, to insist that women and men are biologically different in ways that mandate different careers and a whole world of other specified differences and, on the other hand, to insist that no legislation should be crafted to match these alleged differences. For the record, my position is that the few biological differences that exist between the sexes should not be taken as an excuses for allowing entrenched social inequities to persist. That said, for the very same reason, I don’t favor laws that would perpetuate such inequities by creating new forms of the double standard.
Finally, I agree with those who have already said that the feminists and others who sought to help the Ghanaian woman did so in good faith. Had she been telling the truth, there would have been much reason to commend them for supporting her case. The question of where to draw the limits is a complex one. I, for one, don’t know enough about the matter to debate about it intelligently. There are doubtless all kinds of policies already in place to articulate priorities: perhaps they are rational, perhaps not. Without some substantive knowledge of these, I fear this thread cannot go very far.
I am glad that we ironed out a few points. Just to do away with all wrinkles: I have no doubts that they wanted to help that Ghanaian woman in good faith. The methods were objectionable. If they used accepted, legitimate methods, we would not probably heard about the case.
The differences in our anatomy deserve bigger garment departments and toilets. I think they also mean slightly different occupations, because I think that as women pee differently, they perform some tasks differently. If you think otherwise, it’s your prerogative.
And lastly, I do not INSIST on codifying different facilities for boys and girls. I mean, if municipalities have to spend time and money, they can do so. But it is not necessary.
Here: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0196239
You can find a TV series loosely based on a ‘50s hilarious French film “Scandal a’ Clochmerle”, about public toilets. I was unable to find the film itself. I remember how the city fathers in it fought over minor details while building a public sandbox.
The last portion of your post made me think: I do not know about the details of political asylum rules myself. For instance: if a neonazi (prohibited in France) seeks the political asylum in the U.S., because of fear of persecution, will he be admitted? So, who knows: what is irrational to you and me might be rational to somebody else?
Here’s the INS, on “How do I apply for asylum?”
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/asylumHDI.htm
Definition of refugee http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/howdoi/refugee.htm
the Torture Convention http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/torture.htm
This next cite is a huge document, written by a lawyer, who is presumably looking to drum up some business, but it’s still a fascinating overview of the whole asylum process. I’m just going to hit the high points.
http://www.visaus.com/asylum.html
It looks to me as though there’s a lot of flexibility in how “political” asylum is defined.
(Note: it’s interesting to note that I mistyped “asylym” into Google and still got a number of hits. 
)
Duck, I have made a mistake. After reading your post I realized: it was not 'an asylum" for me, I entered as ‘a refugee’.
Peace
Well, evidently everybody enters as a “refugee”, according to the INS guidelines. Whether you’re asking for asylum or entering as a refugee, you still have to qualify as a “refugee”. You have a year to apply for “asylum” status after you’ve entered the U.S. So it looks like you could come in as a “refugee” and then change it to “asylum”.
I wasn’t trying to pin you down or anything, I was just curious as to how the rules actually went, about asking for asylum. Like I said, it looks like they have fairly broad guidelines for letting people in, thus blurring the distinction between “political” and “ethnic” asylum.
peace claims to be in the US right? And he claims that English is his second language? So how did he get to be in the US?
Or is it different if you are skilled/not at risk of FGM?/in possession of money? Hmmmmmmm?
Primaflora is the third Australian who vehemently attacks me. The other two accused me of knowing nothing, she implied that I entered the U.S. under some advantageous rules, even put that hmmmmmm? at the end. As far as I know Australia only recently slightly opened her immigration door, despite the huge naturalal resources, her wealth, etc. Is it because most peolple there are as vicious as these three?
As far as my entry, I do not remember the details now. It was so long ago… Of course, I cannot prove it to you but everything was legal although I would not wish the experience on anyone.
HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
That’s so stupid, ignorant, blatantly untrue and easily refuted and I’m not even going to dignify it with a correction.
I wonder why someone suggested you know nothing Peace? (Who were they, by the way?)
There is nothing to defy. Sit still.
Ethnic groups: Caucasian 92%, Asian 7%, aboriginal and other 1%
That’s what I found on the first web page I visited. It did not say that immigration was difficult, but it did not explain why a huge rich country has less population than Canada, with its strict immigration laws.
I wonder why someone suggested you know nothing Peace? (Who were they, by the way?)
Exactly, who were they? And also: where are they now? In Australia?
Peace
Perhaps peace was taking the historian’s long-term view. Up until the post-World War II period, Australia pretty much pursued a “whites only” immigration policy.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~natinfo/demise3.htm
Australian immigration policy today.
http://www.austimmigration.com.au/more.htm
This is cute. http://www.ozramp.net.au/~senani/peoplehi.htm
Hurrray! I (with Duckie¡¦s help) found where Primaflora came with her crap: this page tells it all:
Australia currently accepts around 80,000 new immigrants a year. The present criteria for immigration are:
„h skills, qualifications and abilities in demand in Australia
„h capital and business expertise
„h close family ties
„h refugees and humanitarian needs
I belive, Australian reason #3 is reason #1 in the American Immigration law. Reason #4 is probably not very high on our list either, but for many years America has been #1 in the world for all the opressed. I wish it stayed that way for years to come, not only will we be the most magnanimous nation in the world: we¡¦ll get the best people!