Andy, you freaking ignoramus, have you no concept whatsoever of intellectual honesty?
Yes, Gilman can be intelligently critiqued on her racism, just as Martin Luther King can be intelligently critiqued on his sexism. That doesn’t mean I won’t cite Gilman as a decent feminist, nor King as a decent civil rights advocate.
As for the “widely read” canard, you’ve got to be kidding me that you consider it a significant issue. I’ve told you approximately how many books in the genre I’ve read (a lowball estimate, since I’m basing the number on specific works that I remember reading; if I had a bibliography to peruse, I’d probably recall other works that fit the category, e.g., Octavia Butler’s trilogy on alien invasion). You obviously don’t think that counts as widely read in the field. I do, considering the relatively small size of the genre. Who fucking cares? I’m certainly better read in it than your lame ass.
But that fits your argumentative style. Rather than address points of substance, you pick small phrases out of other folks’ posts and harp on them over and over, as if you can win a debate by pointing out that your opponent’s shoes are untied.
Were I to do the same thing, for example, I’d ask you whether your utter lack of intellectual integrity is someone else’s faulty, and I’d repeat that phrase like an idiot Teddy Ruxpin for the next twenty posts. But that wouldn’t win me the argument; it would just make me look as cretinous as you.
You’ve got no interest in honest debate, although you’ve got a rabid interest in dishonest debate. That’s why I’ve stopped engaging you in the other thread: when you’re reduced to pointing out irrelevancies and falsely claiming that I made false claims about you, there’s no point in talking with you.
Again with the implication that the ‘big bad men’ run things. And the implication that if a person disagrees with feminism, that person is a sexist.
So bell hooks thinks that if ‘masses of people’ believe that feminism is about women and men being equal, and that those ‘masses of people’ have been ‘fooled by the patriarchy of mass media’, then what does bell hooks think feminism really is?
If it’s not for equality, then what?
As for Hillary Clinton, she’s also the person who said:
Don’t pity those expendable men who die on the battle field defending someone else’s rights or someone else’s life. That doesn’t make them the primary victims of war, it makes them the perpetrators. No, who you should feel sorry for are the women whose lives aren’t lost.
Why care about thousands of dead men when you can care about thousands of women crying?
By the way, if women participate in Hillary’s ‘true democracy’ by voting, does that mean that men participate by dying?
Another idea that seems common to many well-known feminists is the idea that the nuclear family must be destroyed.
Oh pity those poor, weak, fragile men who must be protected because they are more simpleminded and not strong enough, like women are, to deal with those difficult things.
And don’t forget that Margaret Atwood gave us The Handmaid’s Tale, a very lovely cautionary work of feminist dystopia in which we wee what happens to a society in which men are given ‘too much’ of a leadership role. The whole book is based on the idea that men are by nature oppressors, and if they get the chance, they will use a leadership role to oppress women.
Better than what? Than men? Quindlen’s not even subtle in her sexism here, but I doubt that many people would even notice that she’d made a sexist remark because society has reached a point where such negative things said about men are automatically given a pass.
Like the T-shirt I saw at Gadzooks clothing stores a while back: “Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them.”
Wonder what would have happened if a boy wore a shirt that said “Girls are stupid. Throw rocks at them.”?
So men are whiners who are only happy when miserable because then they can brag about their misery?
Again with those thoughts that the nuclear family must be destroyed. This anti-marriage thread becomes more apparent the more I look into ‘feminists’.
You mean like the sexists quoted above? I don’t call that ‘progress’.
They could start by supporting the reform of the family court system such that custody awards are actually made in the best interest of the child and not on the basis that ‘a child needs to be with its mother’ even if that mother is a drug addict with no job who is constantly in and out of rehab (as my friend’s ex-wife is, and yet she still has full custody). They could acknowledge that non-custodial mothers are more likely to default on child support payments, (47% of non-custodial mothers default on support compared with the 27% of fathers who default. from Garansky and Meyer, DHHS Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, 1991).
But groups like NOW won’t even admit that those things happen let alone try to correct them.
It’s not only that, it’s the T-shirts, the bumper stickers, the messages all over the place that “Men are OK. Every woman should own one.”
Why are these obviously sexist and bigotted statements given a pass?
catsix, give me a list of a half-dozen political advocates you agree with on issues of gender relations, and watch me find unpleasant quotes by them.
If your point is that nobody is perfect, then sure – I agree. If your point is that none of these people have generally sound views on gender relations, you’ll need to do better than that.
For what it’s worth, I despise the little snarky anti-male comments about how women are better than men. I think they shoot feminism in the foot, so to speak.
I think I’ve been very clear in this thread that there are no political activists that I agree with on the issue of gender relations since political activists in that arena are generally biased against men.
Better than providing cites of their sexist views? Let me ask you this, Daniel. If some politician in the area of gender relations had said, even once, ‘It’s not that I don’t like women; I just think men are better.’, do you think he’d get a pass on that if he’d been impartial the rest of the time?
There’s no way a man could get away with a comment like that, no matter what record that man had on gender relations in the past. So how come it’s excusable when the comment comes from a woman?
But you’re willing to give them a pass as long as they come from your favorite feminists, I see. “Oh well, not a big deal. It was only one comment from someone who is generally good.”
Well if you keep excusing it ‘just this once’ from ‘just this one person’, that sure as hell doesn’t help get rid of sexism now does it?
Originally posted by CanvasShoes
Secondly. What consitutes a “real-life” opposition to the dworkins/feminazis of the movement? Do YOU take “real-life” opposition to them?
Okay, now answer my first question. WHAT constitutes “real-life” opposition. And how do YOU “take real-life” opposition to it?
quote:
You asked earlier, if so many women (who may, or may not be feminists or feminazis) DON’T believe them, then why do their books sell? Well HELL, it shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the answer to that one.
I don’t plan on murdering anyone, nor do most “normal” people, but “Helter Skelter” sold (and still sells) pretty well.
My point was spelled out quite clearly in the rest of the paragraph above, of which you cut out only a small portion. People read a LOT of stuff which may interest them, but in which they don’t necessarily agree or follow.
OR, People will read things because they contain SOME things with which they agree. A person doesn’t have to have a “carved in stone” agreement with a concept, (which IS what feminism is by the way, despite the large numbers that have decided it’s “theirs”).
If you think that, then you didn’t read my post. And again, I explained this very thoroughly. People frequently read things out of interest. A person buying and reading something (and remember, THAT is the “cite” that you provided in an attempt to prove that you “Knew” what all these women were thinking, and believing), does NOT consitute their being a convert in whatever the book happens to be about.
quote:
I’m not a communist, nor are many Americans, but Marx’s manifesto is a pretty good seller still.
Asked and answered.
The fact that you keep guessing at what it is I’m actually arguing shows that you’re NOT reading my posts. That you’re just picking out bits and peices with which you can argue and try to “show me up” or the like.
Which, as I’ve said before, is a shame. If you’d listen, and engage in an actual debate, instead of hostile attacks, you might find that you’d not only learn something, but that your question of “well if there are “good” feminsts where ARE they” might just be answered.
quote:
Still, I’ll buy a book out of interest, or to see what they have to say. Doesn’t mean I’m a diehard Atkins or Dr. Phil Convert.
Yes, SOME are. And that’s the point we’ve been trying to show you all along. Some, even some loud, extremely visible and nutso, does NOT equal All, nor even a majority.
As to your statement “they get that way through the books”??? Please!!! Did YOU get the fanatical woman-hating way YOU are “through the books”? Based on your own words, BASED ON YOUR POSTS. I’d say you got that way through personal experiences, likely ones that happened all through your life.
Did the certain books these people (whether rabid FemiNazis, or Atkins nutsies) hone, and finetune their particular interest or belief? Sure. People do what they do, and believe what they believe because of a variety of factors.
It’s not as if some perfectly nice girl went into Barnes and Noble, picked up one of these books and suddenly became a army boot wearin’ abortion promotin, lesbian man-hater. Good grief. You can’t possibly be that naive.
Where did I, or anyone here attempting to converse with you state that we found it acceptable for ANYONE to believe the crap they pander?
I think you need to take some serious courses in the meanings of words, and some reading comprehension. And I’m not being sarcastic or mean. You’ve read several different posters’ explanations of a pretty simple message, namely “the presence of feminazis does make a majority of feminists evil”. That you are reading that as us saying “but it’s okay if some act that way” shows that you’ve either not been reading what we’re saying, or you’re not understanding it.
If it’s the former, and I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that it’s just that this is such a hotbutton subject for you, due to your mistreatment by some of these women.
Then I suggest, that if you DO want to learn, and engage other people in your “cause” that you start reading what people are saying rather than interpreting a few sentences that you don’t like into supporting your hatred.
He disagrees with you about feminism so you call him a woman-hater?
Well thanks for demonstrating that self-professed feminists tend to call people woman-haters when they’re disagreed with.
That their presence goes uncontested by those ‘millions of feminists who aren’t man haters’ you claim exists means one of two things:
Either those ‘millions’ don’t exist, or they don’t think misandry is anything awful enough to oppose vocally.
And of course, all that the feminazis really need for success is that those feminists who disagree keep their mouths shut when injustice against men happens. So which is it? Do they not exist, or do they just tacitly condone anti-male views by remaining silent?
Just, IF you post a statement as fact, you WILL be called on to back it up.
I wasn’t talking about margin there. I was talking about the fact that you’ve been asked repeatedly, by posters OTHER than margin to provide a cite for your statement from your first post (and subsequent similar attitudes), as follows:
quote:
Feminism has a long and cherished tradition of hoping for a female-only society, thus advocating a Final Solution for the male problem.
quote:
(On rape hysteria sending innocent men to prison.)It was the NOW organization that falsely accused them? And then sat on the Jury, and then decided their sentence?
I love the way you like to decide FOR me what I’m saying.
No, I’m saying that the young ladies in question were responsible for her actions in falsely accusing these men. And that the courts had their responsibility in it, in either not providing all of the evidence to the jury, or in suppressing the wrong thing, so as to not allow the jury to see what they were supposed to have seen and so on.
Also, did you NOT note the question mark at the end of that question? HOW did the NOW organization cause this man to be falsely accused?
quote:
ABSOLUTELY, and if you’d READ any of my other posts, you would have seen that I did that some time ago. I think she and her type are nuts. And I HEARTILY disagree with the idea of lessening in any way the amount of men we have in society.
Do PLEASE provide one single quote where I support, agree with, or “run interference” for anti-male feminazis.
Stating that certain things exist is in NO way, REMOTELY equivelant to “running interference” for them.
quote:
What, however, does that have to do with my assertion that no matter WHAT she considers to be “feminism” is NOT speaking for all feminists, and not even necessarily speaking for all NOW members???
And I’ve asked repeatedly, “What would constitute, our “real-life” opposition to these feminazis”???
So what you want is for anti feminazi feminists to form groups and begin fighting the NOW organization?
And in order for us to prove to you and catsix that we do in fact oppose that sort of attitude, we’d have to join or start these groups and no less than that would do?
It’s not enough that we actively support our male co-workers against their psycho bitch from hell ex wives (which I did, including figuring out ways to protect part of his salary from her and telling our boss and having that put into place, but since you only read the parts of our posts with which you can disagree and get hostile, I’m not surprised you missed that), or that we live our lives according to what we believe and accept men as valuable and necessary and beloved members of society?
quote:
We’re NOT advocating what those women have done. Period. You keep trying to equate our saying “all feminists aren’t bad and this small group IS” with us agreeing with what they’ve done.
I don’t know where you live, but where I live, I rarely see what you are saying exists in “widespread” numbers.
And, I teach at a university, mostly young women. Like I said, about 50-150 a semester (depending upon how many classes I teach), and I’ve been there going on 6 years. I’ve never seen the sort of widespread anti-male attitude of which you speak. The closest I’ve come is someone who’s broken up over, or angry at her boyfriend/husband.
I teach fitness classes, of the sort where many times discussions re: life in general happens among the young women. So, it’s not as if they’d be too “tense” or intimidated by male students, or the subject matter to express their opinions.
I also attend the same university, where I take more academic classes, I’ve yet to see that attitude be “widespread” in the more academic classes either.
Where is it that you live? (Not exactly, just the basic area of the country).
quote:
A shame really. If you’d calm down a second you just might see you have people who are actually agreeing with you. You’re just too busy trying to find something to jump on to see that.
Your words and attitude here bely your “I’m calm” statement. You’re taking almost every statement by other posters (unless they too say "all feminists are rabid abortion touting man-hating lunatics), in exactly the opposite way most of them meant them, or not reading or understanding them at all. It’s also very apparent from what you choose to quote that you’re not reading the other posters’ entire posts.
That doesn’t strike me as calm.
As to your statement “other feminists who claim not to support man-bashing,” you just disbelieve them out of hand because they’re not doing what YOU deem to be acceptable actions of opposing man-haters.
Answering your last question first. Actually, I did do just that, on page three of this thread (I think it was page three), but once again, you’ve not been reading the complete text of people’s posts, so I’m not surprised you missed it.
Secondly, I’m not “putting all my energies into fighting a charge of man-bashing”. Not once in this thread have I said it doesn’t happen, I’m well aware it does. Nor am I fighting the justified charges against those who’ve engaged in man-bashing.
I absolutely believe that the women you’ve quoted said what they said, and that they have followers that believe the same stupid things".
What I “put all of my energies” into is the same thing most normal people put “all of their energies” into. And that’s just plain ole trying to keep my head above water. Making a living, paying bills, trying to take care of my house, keep my car running, finding a man to love.
PS. My ex-boyfriend is the one my son lives with. I pay the big-ticket items for his upkeep and the ex pays the day to day living expenses. We were never married, so we made our own arrangements, we’ve never seen the inside of a courtroom over this, we make decisions together, as they come up. IMHO, he’s the better, (though he spoils him too much) parent at this point. And my family (except for the “Joe” spoils MiniShoes too much part) agrees. So, you can see, I DO “put my money where my mouth is”. Literally.
What I, and others, have been saying is NOT “no feminist bashes men”. We’re saying that you can’t paint one group all with the same brush. And your claims of “well, if you don’t believe the same as the rest of them, you can’t be believed unless you form groups and oppose it and fight it”???
Ridiculous. That’s the same thing as telling black people that unless you see organized groups out and about touting “Whitey’s Alright” that you don’t believe ANY Of “them” really aren’t just as prejudiced as the Black Panthers, or Gangsta Rappers.
That is not what that book was about. Earlier in this post, I wrote several descriptions of the actual plot and meaning of the book, which I’ve read three times. Not because I’m a M. Atwood fan, I had no idea, until this thread, that she was anything other than a sci-fi/fantasy author, but simply because it’s a fascinating and scary book.
The society that takes over during the primary part of the book isn’t scary because it’s a patriarchal one (after all, men still rule the world for the most part today, and it’s not Orwellian, or scary).
It’s scary because of the 1984 Orwellian Big Brother, with psuedo religious/puritan society in which it takes place. Millions of men in the book are as downtrodden and opposed as the women, they have their wives and children stolen from them and they’re sent off to work camps, or killed if they oppose the new regime.
Again, both men AND women were villians in this, and both men AND women fought in the underground movement to free America from the “Gideon” society rule, which in the end of the book they finally triumph and return America to normal.
The message of the book isn’t “what happens when men rule” it’s “what happens when a small group with fanatical religious beliefs manages to seize power”.
Get your facts straight before you post them as “cites”.
No, I’m calling him a woman hater because of his attitude that “we’re all against men etc”. He’s angry and bitter about what a certain group has done or attempted to do against men. So he charges our entire gender with “fixing it (by forming groups to prove our worth etc), or we’re not really against it”.
I read the book. That’s where I got the idea that it had a severely anti-male bias.
How typical. Andy doesn’t like what feminists have done and when someone tells him ‘Not all feminists are like that.’, he asks for evidence that not all feminists are like that. He gets asked ‘What kind of evidence?’ and he says he wants to see examples of feminists who speak out, publicly, against anti-male attitudes and bias. He further says it bothers him that people are so silent against that type of sexist bigotry.
And then you brand him a woman hater.
So typical.
Instead of admitting that there are no prominent feminists speaking out against anti-male bigotry in the ranks of feminists, and calling that what it is - a problem - you just accuse Andy of hating women.
I doubt he hates women, but it’s a quick and cheap way to deflect attention from the fact that you can’t prove those ‘millions of silent feminists’ exist, or explain why, if they do exist, they give a walk to anti-male biases.
And you now that all these women are in fact NOT opposing the attitude of feminazis how?
Again, you know that we’re all remaining “silent” because? You don’t know what’s taking place in boardrooms, homes, schools, universities etc in EVERY walk of life.
And again, my point was that NONE of us do. NONE of us are privy to the statements of every other woman who might be a feminist in this country.
You don’t know that when Janes (across the country) say something man-bashing like “women need a man like a fish needs a bicycle” in a boardmeeting, that Vanessas across the country don’t say “Thanks a lot Jane, I happen to love my husband very much and I don’t appreciate that kind of sentiment”!!
You don’t know of the moms who support their little boys crying, or showing emotion if they want, because they refuse to place a preconcieved notion of “what a boy does” on their child.
Or, as in one discussion in my dance class about that very bumper sticker, where girls of all ages and all walks of life, had a very animated discussion about that bumper sticker, and in which the general consensus was that we hated it.
There were a few rather quiet girls during that discussion. Were they supporters of the sentiment expressed on the bumper sticker? We’ll never know, but tbey heard in NO uncertain terms how a whole bunch of their fellow women felt about it.
Your assertion that “unless feminists who are anti-feminazis” forms loud obnoxious groups equivelant to NOW and the like, that we don’t REALLY oppose them" is both wrong, and shortsighted.
There are more ways than “forming a group, publishing books, and marching on Washingon” and basically “I know you are so what am I” demonstrations to those you oppose, to show that you don’t support, or don’t agree with a certain cause.
You don’t appear to have been reading the same andy posts as the rest of us in this thread. Andy’s questions are the calm requests you portray above, in fact, they’re heavily disguised and hidden among his hostile attacks and snottiness. THIS is the “hating” that I’m talking about.
As to “evidence not all feminists are like that” he never asked a question like that, he made accusations, snide remarks, sarcastic insinuations.
The real issue, (and now we’ve FINALLY gotten to it. Though it would have been nice had he foregone all the snideness and attacks, we’d have gotten there much sooner), I see now is that he’s saying, in effect:
“Well, I see NOW being noisy and obnoxious and obvious in their sentiments and actions. And I disagree with those actions and sentiments”.
I don’t blame him. Some of what they’re doing is wrong. But the problem is that he’s assuming something to the effect of:
“Some feminists say they oppose feminazi ideas, but I don’t see them doing the same thing (ala organizations, books, etc) as the feminazis, therefore that’s proof that those women don’t really exist”.
Well, actually he didn’t get asked “what kind of evidence”? He got asked “what would consistute, to YOU, “real-life” opposition”.
He got asked that about 4 times before he finally answered. Again, in a hateful snotty, accusatory way. Not in debate form.
He also didn’t say “it bothers me that people are so silent against sexual bigotry”. That may have been his feeling, but it was again buried under hateful and accusatory lingo".
I also asked what HE was doing, as far as, “real-life” opposition. I see he hasn’t answered that yet either.
Has Andy formed a group, written a book, editorials, started a class, marched on Washington, with HIS views? Or does HE just “remain silent” except for here on the boards (as he accused us of doing)?
Again, I’VE posted the things I’ve done in support of men, and AGAINST blatant anti-male actions.
Well, I can see what NOW’s doing, what MacKinnon’s doing, what Dworkin’s doing, because they write books and give speeches and lobby and get themselves on TV.
What I don’t see is feminists getting on TV to oppose them, on shows like ‘Crossfire’ or any other show that presents two adversarial sides of things. It’s always a feminist vs. a non-feminist.
I do know that the ‘Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them.’ T-shirts were never pulled off the shelves. I know that the ‘Men are OK. Every woman should own one.’ stickers are still in stores all over Pennsylvania and that when I express my distaste with them, I’m told that it’s just ‘not a big deal’.
No, it’s not ‘wrong’ or ‘shortsighted’ to say that those so-called millions of feminists who aren’t anti-male haven’t done enough to oppose those who are man-haters. If they were doing ‘enough’ we’d have at least heard some names.
That means that you can give some examples, and where and when these things are happening, right? Something more than one isolated event?
He responded to the hostility and snottiness that margin threw at him by throwing some of the same back. From what I’ve read in this thread, those who are being nasty to Andy have certainly deserved any bile he threw their way.
I don’t blame him considering the bullshit he’s put up with from a couple of the feminists in this thread.
Dodging the question again. I’m not surprised.
Oh, one discussion in your fitness class. Anything else?
And you now that all these women are in fact NOT opposing the attitude of feminazis how?
First of all what’s a “non-feminist”? Is there still such a thing in this country? Do you mean to tell me that there are still women who are willing to accept being treated at a lower level and paid at a lower level than men?
Second. So, in other words, because other feminists aren’t doing what YOU consider to be acceptable opposition to feminazis, then they don’t exist at all?
quote:
You don’t know that when Janes (across the country) say something man-bashing like “women need a man like a fish needs a bicycle” in a boardmeeting, that Vanessas across the country don’t say “Thanks a lot Jane, I happen to love my husband very much and I don’t appreciate that kind of sentiment”!!
I’ve never seen either T-shirt or bumper sticker. Not in my own state and not as a tourist in places like LA, San Francisco, New Orleans, and Vegas.
That does NOT mean I don’t think those shirts and stickers exist, I just haven’t seen them, if I did, I’d certainly make a statement to the owner of whatever store had them.
quote:
Your assertion that “unless feminists who are anti-feminazis” forms loud obnoxious groups equivelant to NOW and the like, that we don’t REALLY oppose them" is both wrong, and shortsighted.
No, it’s not ‘wrong’ or ‘shortsighted’ to say that those so-called millions of feminists who aren’t anti-male haven’t done enough to oppose those who are man-haters. If they were doing ‘enough’ we’d have at least heard some names.
quote:
There are more ways than “forming a group, publishing books, and marching on Washingon” and basically “I know you are so what am I” demonstrations to those you oppose, to show that you don’t support, or don’t agree with a certain cause.
That means that you can give some examples, and where and when these things are happening, right? Something more than one isolated event?
quote:
Andy’s questions are the calm requests you portray above, in fact, they’re heavily disguised and hidden among his hostile attacks and snottiness. THIS is the “hating” that I’m talking about.
He responded to the hostility and snottiness that margin threw at him by throwing some of the same back. From what I’ve read in this thread, those who are being nasty to Andy have certainly deserved any bile he threw their way.
quote:
He got asked that about 4 times before he finally answered. Again, in a hateful snotty, accusatory way. Not in debate form.
I don’t blame him considering the bullshit he’s put up with from a couple of the feminists in this thread.
quote:
Has Andy formed a group, written a book, editorials, started a class, marched on Washington, with HIS views? Or does HE just “remain silent” except for here on the boards (as he accused us of doing)?
Dodging the question again. I’m not surprised.
quote:
Again, I’VE posted the things I’ve done in support of men, and AGAINST blatant anti-male actions.
Oh, one discussion in your fitness class. Anything else?
Your assertion that “unless feminists who are anti-feminazis” forms loud obnoxious groups equivelant to NOW and the like, that we don’t REALLY oppose them" is both wrong, and shortsighted.
Saying that you feel they haven’t “done enough” is a FAR different thing than stating, as Andy has, that the fact that you don’t see their books, tv appearances etc is a “Cite” proving that they don’t exist.
If that is yours and Andy’s feeling, that you want anti-feminazi feminists to do “more” than STATE that. Though that is a different subject than the one which we’ve been debating. Which is, “do they exist?”.
To suggest that the fact that you don’t personally know of any, or haven’t seen their TV shows as “fact that they don’t exist” is what was shortsighted and incorrect.
quote:
There are more ways than “forming a group, publishing books, and marching on Washingon” and basically “I know you are so what am I” demonstrations to those you oppose, to show that you don’t support, or don’t agree with a certain cause.
Which I’ve done, regarding three separate things just I’ve done, in SEVERAL different posts, starting at the beginning of this thread.
quote:
Andy’s questions are the calm requests you portray above, in fact, they’re heavily disguised and hidden among his hostile attacks and snottiness. THIS is the “hating” that I’m talking about.
Not everyone in this thread is margin. I’ve remained matter of fact, so have several others until annoyed beyond conversing anymore with him, and then they were calling him NOT on his subject matter, but his method of attempting to debate, and his attitudes.
quote:
He got asked that about 4 times before he finally answered. Again, in a hateful snotty, accusatory way. Not in debate form.
Then answer THOSE people with a specific complaint, no reason to get all up in arms with a matter of fact reply or request.
quote:
Has Andy formed a group, written a book, editorials, started a class, marched on Washington, with HIS views? Or does HE just “remain silent” except for here on the boards (as he accused us of doing)?
No, actually I answered it, RIGHT above this sentence of mine you snipped here.
quote:
Again, I’VE posted the things I’ve done in support of men, and AGAINST blatant anti-male actions.
Proof you don’t read people’s entire threads. No, more than that. All listed in my previous thread from which you snipped this sentence, and of which you ignored most.
Also, my point is, that I’m just one person. Many people object to that sort of thing in the ways which I describe myself doing, just in every day life.
It’s always interesting to note how the far left insists on forgiving traits that they condemn in others. So Gilman can be “critiqued” for her racism. Of course for all the rest of us not in the far left camp, we don’t get “critiqued” for this – we’d get vilified, banned, fired, etc.
It’s amazing how Daniel can get so frothing-at-the-mouth, obscenity-spewing mad because someone notes man-bashing in his science-fiction books. Then he calms down and calmly “critiques” the blatant white supremacist views of one of his favorite feminists.
Wow. Being called dishonesty by DanielWithrow is like being called ugly by an ape.
For those of you who have just tuned in to our lovely train wreck, Daniel told a couple of whoppers over on this thread. In particular, he said:
Each statement was false, and I offered Daniel a chance to retract. It was at that time that Daniel went into his I’m-not-talking-to-you-anymore mode. Rather than own up to the fact that he was off on three out of three claims.*****
Also, when the discussion heated up, he proclaimed “I’ve read at least somewhat widely in the field” to establish his credentials, yet earlier he admitted that he had read only “a good half-dozen or more examples from the field.” So, when he wanted to come across as an expert, he inflated his earlier figure to be widely read.
Being called dishonest by Daniel is like having a snail call you slimy.
It is significant that you were caught lying.
First Daniel has read six books. Then he is “somewhat widely” read in the field. Now the list just keeps growing.
By the time this thread is through, Daniel will have read through the entire Library of Congress.
Yes, you’ve read more crap science fiction. And I have a life. I’ll concede the point.
That’s the idea. Stick with something you’re good at.
*****Here are excerpts from that original post, demonstrating that Daniel misrepresented it in three specific areas:
[quote]
Feminist utopian fiction is a sub-genre that ranges from serious polemic to wishful fantasy. In depicting societies of the future or other worlds, feminist utopian fiction often involves science-fiction elements, though other stories are placed in the distant past, in the not-too-distant future, or fictional contemporary societies. Because of its wide range of setting and themes, feminist utopian fiction crosses over several genres – novels with literary aspirations, science fiction, historical romance, and more.
Some of the frequent themes of feminist utopian fiction are societies in which men have either died out, have never existed, or live separately from woman, who are the narrative focus. The all-female societies in some cases propagate through cloning, parthenogenesis or other means. In Ursula K. LeGuin’s “The Left Hand of Darkness,” characters are sexually neutral and can change freely into males or females and back again. In other stories, men and women co-exist equally**(Daniel claimed I mentioned only one them)** or women rule.(There’s another.) In historical fiction, the utopian society might worship the Goddess – at least until patriarchal religion ruins everything.(At least a third)
A related sub-genre is the feminist dystopia, which often imagines a horrible future society displaying the oppression of a ruthless patriarchal rule, the most famous example of this being “The Handmaid’s Tale.” (And here’s an entirely different theme.)
There is also a male-centered version in which men encounter a society of women and re-assert themselves.Yet another one. And it was followed by a discussion of titles, including this one from a feminist site: “Donna J. Young’s “Retreat, As It Was!” tells the tale of a world before men. In some of its descendants an x chromosome is damaged, resulting in offspring with malformed sexual organs and a more aggressive nature.” You’ll note that Daniel continues to insist that none of these titles are anti-male. I suggest that a title in which the world is wonderful until men are born – and men are considered chromosome-damage mutants with malformed sex organs – should raises eyebrows.
If anyone on the board cares to see margin continue to have posting privileges, could you explain to her the injunction against trolling – posting things just to get a reaction?
Margin, believe it or not, I have cut you a lot of slack because you’re a newbie. But people can and do get banned over posts in the Pit.
So I will ask you one more time: precisely what do you want a cite for? I will post a cite for anything you request, but you haven’t requested anything – you just keep repeating that you haven’t gotten the cite.
If you wanted a cite, you would specify what post you want it for. If you just want to scream “cite” and spew obscenities to ellicit an emotional reaction … well, that seems to fit the definition of trolling.
I am asking what you specifically want a cite on. If you reply with more of the same, I will collect the posts and submit them. I have been more than fair to you and more patient than I should have been.
If anyone wishes to have the continued pleasure of margin’s company, could you please advise her on the matter?