Also, I wouldn’t be making fun of the board rules at this point.
Catsix, notice also how he objects to man-bashing on the grounds that it hurts feminism. You’d hope he would think man-bashing is itself bad.
Sounds like that wraps up the case pretty well, then. Feminist Utopian Fiction is rife with women-only societies or women-dominated societies. You can even find pages devoted to them on the web.
Oh, and add them adopting the Amazon theme, another women-only society.
By becoming poltically involved, by responding to the issues, and if necessary, with a legal response.
You are attempting to downplay the anti-male attitudes again. You don’t explain why people would be interested in man-bashing. But your attitudes is that we shouldn’t worry about it because only some of the readers will adopt anti-male attitudes.
I have a feeling that if this sort of thing were aimed at you as an organized and politically connected movement, you would not be so complacent. The theme I see running through your posts is that man-bashing is so rare that it is nothing to be concerned about. However, when people like me or catsix have been in areas where the figurative hose was turned on us, we got wet. The spot where you’re standing is dry, so you don’t know what we’re worried about.
But when you feel the hate, when it’s aimed at you in the place where you work, or go to school, or live, it’s a different matter. You lack of concern on this matter is chilling.
I have to say I am saddened, though not surprised by your words.
I have objected to anti-male hatred of leading feminists. You have consistently failed to recognize their hate when we point it out to you, or you downplay it as if it ought to be no concern. And because I object to certain members of a political movement being biased against me, you say I hate women.
Typical. Malacandra was certainly wrong about you and I was right. Saddened, but not surprised.
I have to say I was prepared for that attack, but I also was sort of hoping it wouldn’t come. We’ve called her bluff on showing us any concrete evidence of feminists taking a stand against man-bashing. None was forthcoming and so she played the misogyny card – if you question feminists, you must hate all women.
This is such a classic feminist tactic that I think she is sandbagging about the level of her feminist involvement.
quote:
Quote by Andy…Feminism has a long and cherished tradition of hoping for a female-only society, thus advocating a Final Solution for the male problem.
Reply by Canvas…You followed this up with “cites” attempting to prove this assertion that consisted of Science Fiction novels. And 2 or 3 known nutso’s statements.
Your statement above makes no sense. You asked for a copy of the quote showing that you had in fact said that “Feminism has a long and cherished tradition of hoping for a female-only society, thus advocating a Final Solution for the male problem”
So, I paste it from your post. And state that people were looking for a cite to show that that was indeed what “feminism” was doing, in REALITY in this day and age.
And to that request, you provide Science Fiction books.
quote:
Originally posted by CanvasShoes
Okay, now answer my first question. WHAT constitutes “real-life” opposition. And how do YOU “take real-life” opposition to it?
I see. In other words, unless one is politically involved, they don’t meet your definition of being opposed. Also, legal response? Again, proof you’re not reading people’s entire posts. IANAL, but I’ve shared an example of JUST this, (taking a MAN’S side and assisting him in a divorce with a nasty stbX), including assisting him in protecting some of his pay, in at least three posts.
quote:
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.
My attitude is nothing of the kind. You stated that the “millions of women buying these books” was proof that little or no “nice/good” feminists existed. Then you asked (paraphrased) “if they’re not believing these books then howcome they sell so well”. That post, in addition to the several other times I’ve answered that question, is an answer to that. Period.
As an organized and connected movement? What the devil are you running on about. I’m a person, just one person, not an organization of some sort.
1.) No, I’m not saying that “this is so rare it’s nothing to be concerned about”. I’m saying that I personally have not seen it, so I’m not privy to the same information, experiences and such that you and catsix are. Period.
2.) I’m not at ALL saying that you and catsix have no reason to be fighting the disservices and mistreatment of you.
That being the case, what is it that you would consider “acceptable” opposition from people like me? Are you saying that everyone in this country has the obligation to become a political lobbyist and fight the things that have happened to you and catsix? Either that or you don’t consider that they are “telling the truth” about their not sharing the feminazi view?
The original question and issue at hand was NOT “are regular feminists doing enough to make sure the cause doesn’t become overrun by feminazis”.
The original question, and what YOU were denying was “regular (read: nice/good man liking) feminists” don’t exist. And as proof, you provided cites from Sci Fi and the nutso fringe.
Now you’ve changed your tune. We exist, but we don’t care, we’re lackadaisical, because we aren’t organizing into political structures and fighting.
Oh please. Let’s get all melodramatic now shall we? My “lack of concern”?
Because I don’t belong to, or haven’t organized a group to protect men from NOW? That’s laughably illogical.
quote:
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”?
Well, at least you’ve calmed down a bit.
Your extreme statements, snideness and counter-attacks merely because some of the women here disagreed with your assessment of the situation struck me as woman-hating. In other words, you were doing the same thing you were accusing the NOW people of.
The thing is, people WEREN’T disagreeing with your assessment of NOW, or that the folks mistreating you were wrong or anything of the kind. The issue was, and HAS been your statement that “feminism” is responsible for this problem.
In other words, it’s been a simple disagreement with you painting an entire group with the same brush. You being prejudiced. Against women. So, yes, woman-hating was a little strong, and for that I apologize.
After your silly and completely thoughtless and illogical outbursts throughout this “debate” for you to make this attempt at psychology is goofy. But, whatever floats your boat.
No, I’ve provided evidence of women taking a stand against man-bashing. Several times. In several posts. Despite the fact that the orginal debate was whether “normal” (non man-bashing) feminists existed.
1.) I have provided examples of women opposing man-bashing.
2.) My statement that you were engaging in woman-hating, was NOT referring to your disagreeing, but with your snottiness, your attacking, rather than debating, and you refusal to read anyone’s posts, but merely to pick out small phrases with which to disagree over and over again.
Funny statement considering I never claimed to HAVE any “feminist” involvement. I specifically stated, again, in several posts that neither of you have read, that I belonged to NO organizations.
I stated, in more than one post, that I wasn’t even aware that Ms. Mag was still being published. I also stated that I hadn’t heard of many that andy quoted and cited, til he did so.
I specifically stated, in several posts, that I considered myself one merely because I fit the original definition.
Yes. Science fiction books (and also historical novels and dystopian novels) that had precisely that theme.
If you want more, you could peruse The S.C.U.M. Manifesto which Robin Morgan included in her anthology for women’s studies courses.
quote:
Originally posted by CanvasShoes
quote:
Quote by Andy…Feminism has a long and cherished tradition of hoping for a female-only society, thus advocating a Final Solution for the male problem.
Reply by Canvas…You followed this up with “cites” attempting to prove this assertion that consisted of Science Fiction novels. And 2 or 3 known nutso’s statements.
Your statement above makes no sense. You asked for a copy of the quote showing that you had in fact said that “Feminism has a long and cherished tradition of hoping for a female-only society, thus advocating a Final Solution for the male problem”
So, I paste it from your post. And state that people were looking for a cite to show that that was indeed what “feminism” was doing, in REALITY in this day and age.
And to that request, you provide Science Fiction books.
Sci Fi novels with that particular theme no more “prove” that this is reality, than Ray Bradbury’s “Martian Chronicles” (and all his imitators) proves that there is life on Mars.
Your quote states that “Feminism has a long and cherised tradition…”. Not that some feminists have that tradition. There is a HUGE difference.
In the first, you are making a sweeping, yet unproven and unfounded, generalization. Something that, as has been pointed out, and has happened in this thread, other posters WILL call you on it.
The reason we keep asking for cites, is that you haven’t provided one that shows that, aside from specific (and already conceded and condemned) nutsos and some of their followers, that it’s Feminism itself that has this supposedly “long and cherished tradition” rather than, again, a militant and in the minority (and by most of us DISAGREED with) faction of feminism.
And again, by “in the minority” I’m NOT saying that they’re (various accusations made by you) not:
a.) to be condemned
b.) definite trouble makers
c.) proven to have ugly attitudes about men (NOT shared by the rest of us)
d.) loud, visible and Publicized
e.) possessed of the power to lobbyIf you want more, you could
No, by “in the minority” I mean NONE of the things listed above. I mean that their opinions are not shared by “feminists” as a group. Again, disagreeing with your propensity to make a blanket statement for an entire group.
[quote]
peruse The S.C.U.M. Manifesto which Robin Morgan included in her anthology for women’s studies courses.
Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women,… …--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, there’s her problem right there. Sounds as if she’s a spoiled rich brat with WAAAAAAAAAy too much time on her hands, if she’s got to be such a busy body as to find half of the human race to be “a mistake” or whatever.
Again, it doesn’t seem to be piercing the void that we AGREE with you regarding women like her.
What WE are disagreeing with you about is simple. The OP was “what is a feminazi” (paraphrased). You came in blazing at “feminists” and claiming they did this, that and the other, ad nauseum.
To people who tried to tell you not to use that wide brush, you accused them of the “feminist” trick of saying you’re a feminist basher because you disagree with the “bad” feminists.
No, no one was saying that those you were quoting weren’t wrong. We’re saying that their existance doesn’t mean that the entire group is like that. But YOU, using sci-fi as a cite, said that that IS what feminism is today, and that the “regular” feminists didn’t exist.
Folks told you differently, using personal stories and other cites.
Then you started twisting about like a worm on a fishing hook changing your complaints about feminism, now it’s not “they don’t exist” but “they don’t do enough to protect people from their evil counterparts”.
You described nastily worded t-shirts and bumper stickers as “proof” of the widespread and majority opinion of “feminists”. And that if we “regular” feminists really existed, we’d band together, form political groups and “fight the evil”. Otherwise, we don’t count.
Well, if THAT is the “proof” then I guess your kind (whatever that might be), better form political groups and ban Tom Leykis, because he’s nasty and evil too.
Of COURSE that’s very silly. There are mean and nastily worded T-shirts about everyone, and mean and nasty things said on the radio, TV, and all over the place about EVERYONE.
Lots of people get treated badly in their lives. I think at one point you said you’d “suffered for years under their actions”??? (paraphrased, this was a statement of yours in reply to me asking exactly what it was you expected us to do, you said that people like me hadn’t “suffered” the way you had, nor seen it done, and were on “dry ground”).
At this point, I think that you’re not quite sure exactly what it is you’re fighting. I know one thing, I’M sure not sure. All you’ve provided are quotes from known nutsos, and other than the incident in College for catsix, I haven’t really seen you post any proof of PERSONAL injury to you by the attitudes, books and statements of these women.
Other than insult of course, and as I said, “so what?” we all get insulted for specific personal things by other groups of people every day.
Does this mean that we all need to “form groups, and political organizations” and take legal action everytime some group’s figurehead says something stupid and insulting?
It occurs to me that my own comment may not count as “proof”, but I think I need to make it anyway.
The message I got as a child and a young teenager was that feminism had gone and made it possible for women to go out into the world and become power-suited and mighty. And that women who did not take advantage of those opportunities were ungrateful at best, quisling throwbacks to the 1950s at worst, brainwashed by “the patriarchy”.
Feminism as I saw it was all about women being whatever they wanted to be, so long as they didn’t want the things that I wanted. While I’m aware that this isn’t universal among folks who call themselves feminists, “feminism” itself will likely always carry for me that subtext that I am a failure as a modern woman because I don’t want to go out and sieze the corporate day. I can’t consider myself a feminist because to me that would be embracing self-hatred, which substance I have plenty of in stock already. I’ve done a lot of work to be able to feel that it’s okay for me to freely choose to be home-and-family centred, that I’m permitted to make that free choice for myself without it being a failure or betrayal.
Now THAT is a reasonable argument Lilaren. I’ve no beef with people being against certain aspects of feminism. As I’ve said many times in this thread, I consider myself one only because I fit the technical definition.
What some of the people here had a problem with was the "paint them all with the same brush mentality shown by catsix and S. AndyD.
Funny you should mention that you were pushed to be anything but a housewife. My parent’s were WAY ahead of the times when I was a girl. They were very traditional but they encouraged my sister and I to do well in school and get a good education and a good job. They tried to discourage us from “just” getting married.
Unlike in your situation though, it was never done in a housewife’s not “good enough” way.
They just, like a lot of parents, wanted us to have things better than they did, so we wouldn’t have to struggle like they had.
This is a SERIOUS hijack, but I have nothing but awe for sahms. I would uzi an entire post office if I were to try that for even a month.
I don’t have the patience for it. But my ex does. He works, but he’d like nothing better than to have a woman foot the bill while he played sahD. Unfortunately, he didn’t get that being a SAHD meant more than just watching the kid. It meant that you needed to take responsibilities for the housework as well.
All in all, kids and housework? Holy cow, I’d go nuts inside of a week. My hat is off to you.
You make no sense, CanvasShoes.
When Lilarien says that she won’t call herself a feminist because in her experience feminism has meant a flat out rejection of the kind of life she wanted, considering her a failure of the cause for not wanting to climb the corporate ladder, that’s fine with you.
But when I say (or Andy says) that the meaning of feminism has become, in personal experience, one so clouded with anti-male hatred due to the actions of large feminist groups, feminist scholars, feminist authors, and feminist lobbyists that the whole thing looks sour and is something to personally stay away from, that’s wrong?
What you’re really saying is that Lilarien’s experiences with feminism are valid and that Andy’s and mine are not. So Lilarien can reject feminism because of personal experiences with feminists and isn’t a misogynist, but I can’t?
Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
No, I’m saying that the MANNER in which she expresses it is reasonable. Period. Andy and you, at every reply to you were going off on ridiculous tangents.
Better make this point by point. No, when I said “now THAT’S a reasonable argument”. That’s exactly what I meant, no more, no less. That the manner in which she was arguing her point was reasonable. Unlike yours and Andy’s. FTR, I have specifically asked questions on several occasions about women who may or may NOT “call” themselves feminists, or fit the technical definition. I certainly haven’t claimed to know that aspect of this debate.
I’ve not said in ANY of my posts that the anti-feminazi viewpoint is invalid. I’ve said feminazi does NOT = feminist. Period. Though I did state that I disagreed that the Mackinnon/Dworkin/etc viewpoints were valid ones.
I never said that your personal experience regarding feminism was wrong, nor that yours and Andy’s feeling that “actions of large feminist groups” etc were something to stay away from were wrong either.
What I, and others in this post objected to were the “painting them all with the same brush” attitude with which you addressed the points. You and andy both, when trying to prove that feminist meant feminazi in this day and age, kept citing the same group over and over.
It does not MATTER whether THOSE women consider themselves “true” feminists or not. Once again, the ORIGINAL, and TECHNICAL term as defined by the current dictionary does NOT carry the meaning that those women have come to portray it as meaning.
I also stated that it may very well BE that prevelant in your area, but that doesn’t mean that that is what is happening for the entire female half of the country, NOR is it proof that it’s the way it is now. Just that it’s the way it is in YOUR neck of the woods, and/or your experience.
But then, once again, had you actually READ my posts, (my entire posts, not just small snips with which you could get all snitty and nasty), then you’d have already seen this PAGES ago in this thread.
No, that is NOT what I’m “really” saying. Again, my statement that Lila’s argument was reasonable was JUST that. Period. Without going off on snotty, ridiculous tangents, many of which weren’t even related to the debate OR the OP, she stated her case. Unlike the two of you.
FTR, I stated in several posts that I both believed and sympathized with you two regarding your experiences with feminists. Your comments to me when I expressed sympathy and belief, were that you had not asked for sympathy or comments regarding your experiences and did not WANT sympathy or comments.
Once again, I have NOT stated that I think that people “have” to be feminists. My main point was that the TECHNICAL definition of the term applied to most working adult women. And that most working adult women didn’t behave, or act as those that you describe.
You can’t seem to wrap your mind around the difference between those two things, and you seem to keep getting caught up in thinking I’m defending the actions of the feminazi types. I’m certainly not.
Again, I certainly condemn the antimale attitudes of these women. They do NOT speak for me, nor do many other women consider them to speak for them.
Yours and andy’s argument (until this post and now you’ve changed it again) was that the word feminist REALLY means the dworkins in this day and age, because YOU say that’s what it means, and you’ve had the experiences with the dworkin types to prove it.
I’m saying that those women, and their followers are CERTAINLY wrong, evil nasty creatures. But, that they do NOT embody the be all and end all of the meaning or word of what “feminism” stands for.
Well, then you’re being a hypocrite.
Since the crux of Lilairen’s statement was that due to those feminists who, in her experience, had turned ‘feminism’ into something that was totally opposed to the choices she wanted to make, and she did say that the term in general has, in her mind, that connotation, and that’s really not that much different than me telling you that in my experience, feminism has been an anti-male ideology and because of that, I want nothing to do with it whether there’s somebody somewhere who isn’t anti-male and calls herself a feminist.
There is no actual difference in saying that while there may be some self-professed feminists who don’t think you’re a sellout to the patriarchy if you don’t have a career outside your home, the meaning of feminism has been corrupted by those who do think so and saying that while there may be some self-professed feminists who aren’t anti-male, the meaning of the word has been corrupted by those who do.
If you are trying to say those two things are different, and you seem to be, you’re being hypocritical.
A hypocrit is a person who says one thing and does another. Something I have not done in this thread. Or in this subject/debate.
Sigh. If you would read my post, my WHOLE post, and not just snip out little bits, you’d understand what I’m saying and stop inferring what YOU believe me to be saying from my posts.
But, I’ll try one more time.
I am NOT saying that I don’t understand where people would get a bad taste in their mouths from the way SOME feminists act. And even a large group such as NOW is still SOME, not ALL, not “feminists”.
However. I am saying that, just as in speaking of black people, or any other group, to say that “feminists” do this, that or the other is to make a sweeping generalization of a group as a whole, and THAT is wrong. That is what I meant by these are two different things.
To say “some of these feminists have gone wrong, and done wrong”. Yes.
To say “feminists” are X, Y or Z. Incorrect. To point that out is not being “hypocritical”.
Let me explain that more carefully since you seem to STILL be thinking I’m saying something completely different than I am.
1.) Yes, I’m aware that there is a large organized group (called NOW) partly consisting of unpleasant women who call themselves feminists, but who really don’t fit the definition of the word.
2.) I do NOT agree with their ideas of man-hating, nor their opinion that men should 'go away" (to simplify).
3.) Their presence does NOT = feminism. Just feminism as THEY see it, and feminism as one FACTION of feminism. Even though they make up a large group, they are still just SOME. Not the be all and end all.
4.) Again, Yes THAT faction is bad. And yes, THAT faction gives women and feminists a bad name.
5.) That faction however, is NOT the epitome, or the essence or the meaning of feminism, however they may have twisted it, or tried to call it their own.
I see why you’re a little confused. There are several different issues here and you’re trying to roll them all into one argument/debate.
First issue. Has the word/concept “feminism” been corrupted so that, in this day and age it actually refers to the “bad segment” and ONLY the bad segment?
IMHO, the NOW people have certainly given feminism a bad name. BUT, I don’t think that they have so appropriated the word that they ARE feminism. I can see how they have intimidated and/or confused people into believing that though.
Second issue: My not agreeing that the word has completely changed to mean the NOW generation does NOT mean that I’m “hypocritical”.
Again, hypocritical means saying one thing and doing another. I would have to be an actual NOW member who really DID think men should go bye-bye, (PERISH the thought! I’d never make it) to actually be hypocritical in this instance.
What I AM being is in disagreement with you as to what the WORD has come to mean in this day and age. Disagreeing with someone isn’t “being hypocritical”.
You have presented YOUR evidence and experiences as to why you think feminism IS this “new” meaning.
I’ve presented MY evidence and experiences as to why I do NOT think that feminism is this “new” meaning.
Nothing hypocritical about that.
Third issue is that you and Andy have had some nasty run-ins with this faction. Understandably you have a lot of anger and bitterness because of that. You (both of you) seem to have had instant, knee jerk reactions regarding these debates.
Again, I’ve never taken sides on this issue. And again, I’ve stated several times that I consider myself to be a feminist merely because I fit the technical definition. My point in the debate was a very neutral one regarding the technical meaning of the word itself.
A fourth issue that Andy kept bringing up, was that of the (to simplify) “if you’re REALLY a real ‘feminist’ you’d join/start political groups and take legal action against the “false” ones” and protect those that they’re targeting with their nastiness".
And what, (or whom), pray tell, would I be fighting against? There isn’t a group up here that does what groups in your area do. Or do you two think that I should move to DC to fight the lobbyists to “prove” that I’m “one of the good ones”?
There is a lot of unpleasant stuff that goes on in the world. Child abuse/molestation for one. No one but the child molesters thinks that THAT is a good idea. But you don’t accuse a person of not being a REAL “anti child abuser” because they aren’t in a political group against it.
Again, and as I described in many previous posts. Most of us are just plain old folks, trying to get by. OUR “way” of fighting discrimination. INCLUDING that which may come from a man-basher, is in doing it in every day life, as in my examples.
And yes, I had but three examples. But I am just one person. There are many others doing the same thing.
And a fifth issue. Now that we KNOW that some of the NOW types are going overboard, and overboard in a sick way, should we start groups to stop their madness?
Should we stop their attempts to stir up the "patriachy conspiracy so to speak? Well DUUUH. Of COURSE we should.
Does that mean that ALL of us must move to DC and become antifeminazi feminist lobbyists in order to DO so?
In other words, is it your contention that unless we are in a political group, that we aren’t really REALLY opposing them? Or, unless we are doing things that YOU consider “acceptable and adequate opposition” that it doesn’t “count”?
Curt: A gasp goes up from the crowd.
Howie: And now we see Andy signalling for a time out.
Curt: He’s walking over to the judge’s table, Howie. I wonder what this is about.
Howie: It could be that he’s going to seek medical advice, because, as you know, talking with someone as stupid as that can be physically painful.
Curt: But if he has to bow out from physical pain at CanvasShoe’s stupidity, she can claim a win by default, right?
Howie: Wait, there’s quite a commotion at the judge’s table. We’re getting word in the booth here. It seems that Andy …
Curt: Can it be!
Howie: Yes, he has asked if CanvasShoe’s post qualifies for The Dumbass Hall of Fame.
Curt: The Dumbass Hall of Fame! Ladies and gentlemen, if CanvasShoe’s post qualifies even for the preliminary round of the Dumbass Hall of Fame, then we are witnessing history being made here tonight.
Howie: It’s an audacious move. Andy says this is one of the dumbest things yet said on this thread – and remember, margin has posted here. But what chances are there of her post making the Dumbass Hall of Fame?
Curt: Well, let’s take a look at what CanvasShoes said. She demanded a cite for Andy’s comment that “Feminism has a long and cherished tradition of hoping for a female-only society.”
Howie: And he listed a slew of feminist works on the idea of female-only societies, dating back at least to Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s “Herland” in 1915 and continuing through modern times with feminist science fiction.
Howie: And he provided links to websites devoted to feminist utopian fiction, which includes many titles on women-only societies. And he cites essays by feminists who wished for female-only societies. But let me play the devil’s advocate here. When CanvasShoes then denied that nearly a century’s worth of feminist writing on the topic constituted proof of a nearly century’s worth of feminist writing on the topic, that was just a fairly typical, if lame, debate tactic. You just deny, deny, deny. Hardly worthy of the Dumbass Hall of Fame.
Curt: Rember, though, CanvasShoes said "The reason we keep asking for cites, is that you haven’t provided one that shows that, aside from specific (and already conceded and condemned) nutsos and some of their followers, that it’s Feminism itself that has this supposedly “long and cherished tradition” rather than, again, a militant and in the minority (and by most of us DISAGREED with) faction of feminism.
Howie: I admit to seeing some humor in saying that he hasn’t provided a single cite, except for the specific cites he provided. And ignoring a list of books in which women reproduce without men or consider men the products of a defective chromosome. But the Dumbass Hall of Fame?
Curt: Maybe Andy is referring to her insistence that the leading feminist organizations, authors, scholars, professors, publications and commentators, and all of their followers are somehow the fringe. She insists that the vast majority of feminists oppose man-bashing – just not so that you’d ever notice.
Howie: Take "The S.C.U.M. Manifesto. " He notes that it was included in a leading feminist’s anthology, that the book was compile by the editor of Ms. Magazine, and that the book was taught in women’s studies classes, all of which CanvasShoes defines as the fringe minority.
Howie: I agree that CanvasShoes hasn’t cited a single feminist leader who has objected to man-bashing, can’t cite a single feminist book that condemns man-bashing, can’t cite a single feminist organization that establishes a platform against man-bashing. She is presented with the evidence of man-bashing, and the lack of any prominent feminist voice condemning man-bashing, but she wants us to believe that the rest of the world is wrong in associating feminism with man-bashing.
Curt: Right. And when men oppose man-bashing, she says they hate women.
Howie: Sure, but come on, Curt. That’s a hoary old trick right out of the feminist playbook. CanvasShoes didn’t invent it, so I’m just not seeing anything truly inspiring and awesome and original enough in its stupidity to qualify for the Dumbass Hall of Fame.
Curt: But I’m getting from the judges that Andy is citing her last comment about Ray Bradbury. She said that after she asked for proof of feminism having a tradition of wishing for female-only societies.
Howie: So Andy cited numerous feminists works featuring female-only societies. So what?
Curt: And CanvasShoes replied "Sci Fi novels with that particular theme no more “prove” that this is reality, than Ray Bradbury’s “Martian Chronicles” (and all his imitators) proves that there is life on Mars.
Howie: My God, you’re right. That is a dumbass comment.
Curt: She asked for proof of feminist fantasies about women-only societies …
Howie: … then replied as if the argument was whether societies in science-fiction novels exist.
Curt: Man, now I see the Dumbassity of it.
Howie: Of course. “The Martian Chronicles” indicate that people were thinking of life on other worlds, not attempting to prove they exist.
Curt: Just as feminist fiction on women-only societies show that feminists were thinking about such societies.
Howie: And CanvasShoes makes the bold statement that the stuff in fiction – duh – doesn’t exist.
Curt: As if the ideas in fiction books don’t exist.
Howie: Wow. I guess the only question left to be answered here is – just how blonde is CanvasShoes?
Curt: Wait a minute. Some of the judges are threatening to walk out rather than consider whether CanvasShoes’ post qualifies for the Dumbass Hall of Fame.
Howie: You can’t blame them, Curt. The comment is so dumb that it’s hard to believe someone made it in earnest.
Curt: They’re going over the comment with a fine-tooth comb, looking for irony, hoping not to get whooshed.
Howie: You can’t blame them. Remember how Rosie Ruiz once swept the Dumbass Hall of Fame awards, then it turned out she was faking being that stupid?
Curt: The judges got burned on that one.
Howie: They should have known. Anyone claiming that “Gigli” was a great movie had to be faking.
Curt: The judges are studying the replay. They’re looking at the follow-up posts.
Howie: A hushed silence of expectation falls across the crowd …
Curt: And a sloshed fan of the Yankees falls across the crowd …
Howie: The judges are approaching the microphone.
Curt: What will they say? Will they …
Howie: They’re saying …
Curt: Yes!
Howie: CanvasShoes has qualifed for the Dumbass Hall of Fame!
As has been explained to you numerous times before, Andy, feminist works of fiction do not prove your contention. You must provide something more than references to works of fiction, which it has been conclusively proven in the other thread that you have not read. As has been said numerous times before, put up or shut up. Where’s that cite? It’s almost funny that you continue to try and use Herland when you were caught trying to claim the book was written during the Seventies.
Cite, Andy. Cite. Either you’re stupid or you just don’t have a cite any better than fiction. I guess given your methods I can claim with equal support that the Gor novels prove that science fiction consists of little more than female-bashing.
Cite Andy. You’re just embarrassing yourself now.
margin -
I reposted lots of SAL’s cites. Read them. Then produce the cite you promised for your own claims.
Or make it clear that you have no intention of debating in good faith, and that you are simply trying to disrupt the thread.