My Infamous “Advocacy of Male Infanticide”

Well, since the record of this thread has been deleted from public view at the defunct IBTP message board, this copied and pasted reposting will have to do. What follows was originally part of a thread titled Torture Porn is Now Normal. This portion was charmingly renamed Eliminating Menz by the person who took it upon her/himself to remove it from public view:

mAndrea drive-by feminazi Azure Posts: 88 Eliminating menz « on: July 03, 2007, 06:30:39 AM » Medusa. As part of my ongoing effort to alienate the entire board, the following is humbly offered: This may come as a surprise, but it’s really not about you or either one of your sons. Why on earth can’t you put your emotions aside for one lousy second and see that the entire world is comprised of men who are not your sons? Really. Please explain it to me. How exactly does one go about conflating one man with 3 billion men? I’m all ears. It’s especially baffling because I can’t quite figure out how sexism continues unabated with 3 billion Nigels on the job. Logged If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant’s life, she will choose to save the infant’s life without even considering if there are men on base. ~Dave Barry

justicewalks Azure Posts: 59 Eliminating menz « Reply #1 on: July 03, 2007, 11:49:23 AM » Oh, boy. Here we go again. mAndrea is right that, while the presumption of a natural male inclination toward violent subjugation of females has indeed been used to justify women’s oppression, it can also easily be used to justify extreme efforts toward our freedom from them. We could do this by refusing to be mothers to males. Even in places where abortions or other adequate birth control are lacking, women could refuse to nurse male neonates. You may wonder what horrible tragedies would befall the poor women who didn’t give men the sons they demanded. Might they be beaten? Might they be raped? Might they be killed? Women are being beaten, raped, murdered, sold, and dehumanized right now, in torture porn and elsewhere. I’d rather die fighting as one of the last generation of women to suffer at the hands of men than to live a life of patriarchy-provided comfort, at the expense the generations of daughters to come. Now, perhaps once male numbers were manageable enough, once we’d stopped allowing them an automatic and entitled suckle at the female teat, we could consider the possibility of educating the brutality out of them. In the meantime, it is ridiculous to think that after 6000 years of this shit, a people who comprise 49 percent of the population, hold 98 percent of the wealth, and possess a greater physical strength than us are just going to start treating us like humans out of the kindness of their hearts. I’m not trying to get into it with the mothers of sons, but I refuse, on a supposedly radical feminist forum, to pretend as if it wouldn’t have been better for most males never to have been born. Whether you choose to comfort yourself by including your own Nigel Jr. in that near non-existent minority of men who do not actively benefit from the oppression of women is your own business, and it’s certainly not relevant to radical feminism. Oh, and just to cut certain complaints off at the bud, I’m not attacking anyone, merely pointing out the fact that any feminist discussion of men, let alone a radical feminist discussion of them, is necessarily, at least theoretically, about all men, including the ones you love. If we can expect men to come here and not whine about how different they are from the men with whom we take issue, then surely we should be able to expect the same from the women here with regard to the men in their lives. The theoretical (and sometimes real) implication of all males, even loved ones, must be recognized. Even the most heinous of rapists, traffickers, and abusers have women in their lives who love them. Logged

justicewalks Azure Posts: 59 Eliminating menz « Reply #2 on: July 03, 2007, 11:59:50 AM » No one said you can’t be a radical feminist. By the same token, no, there isn’t anything radical about not-my-Nigel Jr-ing once you’ve had them. Logged

Bird Sapphire Posts: 3707 Chocolate Hemp Milk Disaster Eliminating menz « Reply #3 on: July 03, 2007, 05:21:44 PM » Quote from: justicewalks on July 03, 2007, 11:49:23 AM We could do this by refusing to be mothers to males. Even in places where abortions or other adequate birth control are lacking, women could refuse to nurse male neonates. You may wonder what horrible tragedies would befall the poor women who didn’t give men the sons they demanded. Might they be beaten? Might they be raped? Might they be killed? WTF? I’m sorry, since when did feminism, even radical feminism, justify advocating infanticide? Or perhaps I’m just not radical enough to think that selective abortion based on fetal sex is acceptable as long as the fetus appears to be male. Not radical enough to think that killing an infant (at that point, a human being) is acceptable if said infant bears a penis. Not okay. Logged Free the bound periodicals!

mAndrea drive-by feminazi Azure Posts: 88 Eliminating menz « Reply #4 on: July 03, 2007, 05:55:32 PM » Medusa. The sad thing is that I think I waited a while before posting that. Obviously I need to wait longer. It really has nothing to do with you, it’s just the context, and what that context indicates to me. Someone, maybe me, posts something about getting rid of all men. Someone else responds by talking about their particular Nigel and how they just couldn’t possible stomach getting rid of their Nigel. BOOM! All hell breaks loose. My fault! The way you responded is very common apparently, and I need to find a better way of explaining to people exactly why I think there are several problems with responding in that way. It has to do with context, at least partly. I always get the impression that the person is incapable of seeing the big picture. What else am I supposed to think? They see that the subject is the big picture – ie “all men”, but yet they never seem to reply with the big picture being the subject. They always have to talk about one tiny speck of it – the tiny speck which should be patently obvious that it is only important to them. It reminds me of a doddering old grandma who whips out pictures of the grandkids even when no one mentioned grandkids. I said, “look at the frame, what do you think about that?” The other person says, “that little speck of dust is fascinating!” The speck has absolutely nothing to do with the frame. That the other person is apparently incapable of separating big from small disturbs me greatly. That the other person apparently sees big picture but yet thinks small disturbs me. The mind follows certain patterns when doing similar cognitive functions. If the mind can’t distinguish big picture from small, I worry what else they can’t distinguish. If they mean to say, “well I don’t think we should get rid of ALL MEN because of xyz” then xyz better be LOGICAL reasons that pertain to ALL MEN, not just one. Otherwise, as an argument, it’s completely stupid. Doddering old grandma time. I can see how the other person might think we’re all just having a grand ole rambling conversation, but there is a point to all these conversations. At least, I’m assuming this is true for most of us. Logged If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant’s life, she will choose to save the infant’s life without even considering if there are men on base. ~Dave Barry

justicewalks Azure Posts: 59 Eliminating menz « Reply #5 on: July 03, 2007, 06:09:59 PM » Quote Or perhaps I’m just not radical enough to think that selective abortion based on fetal sex is acceptable as long as the fetus appears to be male. Personally, I think that abortion of any kind, for any reason, is A-OK. I just also happen to think that selective abortion of male fetuses could help to set women free of male oppression, which is, in fact, a radical feminist end. Wresting control of the means of reproduction from male hands in this way might also be seen as a radical feminist means to that end, but the radical feminist nature of that end itself, women’s freedom, cannot be denied. Quote Not radical enough to think that killing an infant (at that point, a human being) is acceptable if said infant bears a penis. Your enemy is depraved enough to think that killing (or, barring that, raping, husbanding, trafficking, or enslaving) an adult is acceptable if said adult bears a vagina. I’d say infanticide, especially in the cases of very young infants, is certainly more merciful than the murder and/or other abuse of fully aware women and girls. Logged

Vera Global Moderator Sapphire Posts: 1502 Eliminating menz « Reply #6 on: July 03, 2007, 06:26:02 PM » Quote It reminds me of a doddering old grandma who whips out pictures of the grandkids Perhaps trotting out misogynistic stereotypes is not the best way to make a point. Just sayin’. Logged

Katherine of Arrogance Board Mod Cobalt Posts: 341 Eliminating menz « Reply #7 on: July 03, 2007, 06:48:21 PM » I feel it is my moderatorly duty to point out that this thread has somewhat digressed from the original subject, and I’ve had a couple of messages from some rather distressed people somewhat concerned about the tone the thread is taking. May I respectfully request that everyone moderate their tone a little? Edit – I must stress that I don’t think anyone intended to upset or offend anyone. I’m also willing to speak to anyone over personal message if they want to discuss this further. « Last Edit: July 03, 2007, 06:51:29 PM by Katherine of Arrogance » Logged “It’s like there’s a Patriarchy in my pants, and I’m not invited!”

shermanvolvo Board Mod Sapphire Posts: 4052 Eliminating menz « Reply #8 on: July 04, 2007, 05:24:09 AM » Hi all. Just wanted to add my .02 I think anger at oppressors is normal, even healthy; anger can be a mobilizing force. The thing is that while we certainly got the short end of the shit stick with patriarchy, many of us on the board also benefit from white privilege, from being non-disAbled, from being str8, etc. I think to eradicate the oppressor is certainly an interesting thought (if only to ponder whether women have internalized the values of a racist, ageist, ableist, classist, heterosexist, homo/transphobic (etc) patriarchy – and I suspect a big chunk of us have – and thus perpetuate the hierarchical values of our predecessors, so to speak). I am okay with having differing opinions than Justice (although I find what you have to say interesting), and am most certainly okay with having someone who I disagree with as an ally. We are all in the struggle together, with differing ideas on how to get there. Men are part of the solution in my own personal ideology; having struggled along side men in peace, environmental, GLBT and animal rights activism, I fully expect them to be similarly involved with women’s liberation. And if they’re not, I’ll send them over to you Justice (*wink) Cheers Logged Abortion – when sacrificing chickens just isn’t enough. -Militant Grammarian You cannot be both “pro-life” and anti-zombie.

justicewalks Azure Posts: 59 Eliminating menz « Reply #9 on: July 04, 2007, 07:10:51 AM » Quote …(if only to ponder whether women have internalized the values of a racist, ageist, ableist, classist, heterosexist, homo/transphobic (etc) patriarchy – and I suspect a big chunk of us have – and thus perpetuate the hierarchical values of our predecessors, so to speak). Well, of course we have internalized these things. We’re far too engaged with men not to be embroiled in their twisted little rules about who gets to fuck whom. I don’t want to address all of the distinct discriminations you’ve listed (not least because one of them is quite the hot potato), but I will take on a couple. For example, it is men who give a shit about race, about phenotype in general, in part, because it helps them to know who their children are to pay close attention to it (the other part is that it has been juxtaposed with the wealth hierarchy). Women, free from the need to make concessions to men’s obsessions with their dicks’ excretions, wouldn’t give too much of a shit about race. They already know who their children are, regardless. As for capitalism, its very foundation is the free labor gotten off the hands and knees of women. All else is their scramble not to become the “woman” in relation to other men. You don’t have to worry about women, free from male obsession with material extension of the penis, taking from the mouths of other women’s children in order to have more than they need. Women, when they aren’t brainwashed into having phantom dicks, are able, even when they do not have or plan to have children of their own, to empathize with what it means to create, let alone raise to decent adulthood, a human being. Free of male influence, women would not seek, at every turn, to cheapen the worth their own contributions. With the goal being female freedom from male oppression, I’ve offered one means. I’m willing to hear other suggestions, but I don’t think there will ever be a critical mass of males willing to abandon their bigger-dick contests. And, barring that, I don’t think there will ever be a critical mass of males willing to go play their bigger-dick games by themselves, leaving women out of it. After all, the only reason a dick, let alone a bigger one, was ever important in the first place is because women don’t have them, neener neener, so what fun would it be to have bigger-dick contests in a place where there aren’t any natural-born spectators to fawn and cheer them on? The thing we have to understand is that men do not want to change. They really don’t. I’ve seen the glimmer of understanding in men’s eyes, only to have it shadowed with the flippant smirk of entitled willful blindness. “Glad I’m not a woman,” they say, and I’m sure you’ve heard it too. The problem isn’t that we haven’t explained feminism clearly enough to them; the problem is that they just don’t give enough of a damn about women to relinquish the privileges sexism affords them. When you figure out a way to wipe that smug, self-secure smirk off their faces without actually denying them access to those things to which they feel, and are being assured, they are entitled, you let me know. Logged

shermanvolvo Board Mod Sapphire Posts: 4052 Eliminating menz « Reply #10 on: July 04, 2007, 12:48:17 PM » Anyone who is afraid of losing their privilege certainly will be resistance to change. But that includes white women, str8 women, non-disAbled women, women have a gender identity different from the sex they were born with, etc., IMHO. Monika Logged Abortion – when sacrificing chickens just isn’t enough. -Militant Grammarian You cannot be both “pro-life” and anti-zombie.

mAndrea drive-by feminazi Azure Posts: 88 Eliminating menz « Reply #11 on: July 04, 2007, 01:58:59 PM » The interesting thing, at least to me, is that when given a preponderance of evidence that men (as a class, as a group) have little or no innate desire (for whatever reason) to recognize women as fully human, idealists refuse to argue the point to it’s logical conclusion. They will argue briefly, and then find some other thing which needs their attention. #1. No statistician in hiz right mind would attempt to argue the point that 99.9999% should be considered anything less than ALL, for practical purposes. #2. If an entire class can be brainwashed out of some particular belief, then they can be brainwashed back into it. #3. The status of women has ALWAYS declined during periods of resource depletion or societal contractions. #4. Refusing to acknowledge a problem will not make the problem go away. Logged If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant’s life, she will choose to save the infant’s life without even considering if there are men on base. ~Dave Barry

Curiouser Guest Eliminating menz « Reply #12 on: July 04, 2007, 02:33:32 PM » Quote from: mAndrea on July 03, 2007, 06:30:39 AM How exactly does one go about conflating one man with 3 billion men? I’m all ears. It’s especially baffling because I can’t quite figure out how sexism continues unabated with 3 billion Nigels on the job. mAndrea, how exactly do you go about conflating your experience with that of all the rest of us on this board? Freud conflated his experience with the rest of humanity and we got many decades of sex-centered, male-oriented shrinkology as a result. Many of us finally came to our senses and questioned the assumptions that had been swallowed for years by the shrink community out of humble reverence for their god. But now he’s been dethroned, and a more balanced rationality that allows for many different viewpoints and life experiences is slowly emerging. For instance, we now question that ‘penis-envy’ drives female behavior. How long did it take for us to question this one man’s personal take on how the world works? He came along at a time when things were ripe for a change, he was smart and well-spoken. He impressed a bunch of people in the right places at the right time and was therefore able to influence an entire social movement. But he was basically wrong. My point? Sorry it’s so fricking long-winded to get there, because I tend to think out loud. My point is that you have had some life experiences that lead you to feel that the only solution to the problem of patriarchy is to eliminate all men. Without knowing what those experiences are, I don’t feel qualified to judge. But I also will attempt to refrain from judging, because obviously those experiences were powerful for you or you wouldn’t speak/write as you do. And conversely, many of us have had different experiences than you’ve had. We may agree that what we’re all jointly fighting against here is our oppression by patriarchy, but our personal experiences lead us to different conclusions about the ‘proper’ solution. Some of us (me included) tend to generalize our own experiences to other people, and thus assume that what works for us should work for everybody else too. You seem not to recognize that some of us LIKE men, foolish as that may seem to you in light of your own experiences with men. Some of us don’t feel that the solution to the problem of men is to off them all. Some of us would like to keep some of our favorite men around. Another attempt at analogy: Some people assume that everyone is a liar and a cheat. Others assume everybody is completely honest, open and straightforward. Both are right; both are wrong. Because each view reflects that person’s life experience up to that point. How did it come to be that both are right, yet so different? Because not everyone grows up with parents who lie and cheat and thus teach their children to be the same and expect the same from the world around them. Because not everyone grows up with honest, open parents who teach them to respect, care for and deal honorably with others. Maybe you could aim your anger at the men who did you the harm in the first place rather than at us here who are fighting the same battle as you are, but with different tactics. « Last Edit: July 04, 2007, 02:35:54 PM by Curiouser » Logged

mAndrea drive-by feminazi Azure Posts: 88 Eliminating menz « Reply #13 on: July 04, 2007, 02:45:30 PM » “Women are just as bad! We’d oppress those less abled than ourselves!” But we sure as shit wouldn’t oppress each other, now would we? And frankly, the assumption that we “are just as bad” at engaging in deliberate oppressions has not been established. The opposite seems to be more prevalent. Once an injustice is pointed out, most feminists seem to change their ways pretty quickly. Curiouser. You’re assuming. Check your assumptions and get back to me. I’m using logic. Logged If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant’s life, she will choose to save the infant’s life without even considering if there are men on base. ~Dave Barry

mAndrea drive-by feminazi Azure Posts: 88 Eliminating menz « Reply #14 on: July 04, 2007, 02:58:43 PM » Thebewilderness had a brillant comment the other day which is quite brillant and very appropiate: But many of the comments above seem to be based on some prurient hatred of sex instead, which is disturbing. This is a cheap transparent trick to change the subject from the behavior of men, to the feelings of women. Every time you hear the term hate used in this fashion it is always a cheapass way to change the subject. Serious people do not like to be manipulated in the style of political operatives. Men rape women. Why do you hate men. Porn hurts women. Why do you hate sex. Do you see the shift from the behavior of the perp to the feelings of the victim? You can see it any time you like on the cable news networks, where that crap passes for discussion. It does not pass here. In other words, I am discussing very large trends covering vast time periods. I am discussing the frame which contains the pictue. Your reply is discussing a speck of dust on the picture. Do you see the fucking difference or is this concept too fucking complicated?

Logged If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant’s life, she will choose to save the infant’s life without even considering if there are men on base. ~Dave Barry

Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

« previous next » Mark unread | Print

	Author	Topic: Eliminating menz (Read 5 times)
0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Bitey Sapphire Posts: 1282 Eliminating menz « Reply #15 on: July 04, 2007, 03:15:43 PM » Quote from: mAndrea on July 04, 2007, 01:58:59 PM The interesting thing, at least to me, is that when given a preponderance of evidence that men (as a class, as a group) have little or no innate desire (for whatever reason) to recognize women as fully human, idealists refuse to argue the point to it’s [sic] logical conclusion. They will argue briefly, and then find some other thing which needs their attention. To take up the hypothetical question of the destruction of all men, I find that you are arguing from a couple false premises: that men are the enemy, and that the only fitting response to an enemy is its utter destruction.. In response to your first premise, neither men qua individuals nor men qua class are the enemy. The enemy is the patriarchy, which is an ideology–a system of thought–that harms everyone it touches, including those it purports to benefit. This position is not to be confused with a what-about-teh-menz style apologia; men must be held accountable for their injustices, and the unjust nature of their privilege. But a holocaust perpetrated on half of humanity is not just or reasonable, or even possible. As to your second premise, this is a response, certainly, but it is not the response. Personally, I find it primitive. It is an animal thing. I am human, and the notion of wholesale, indiscriminate destruction of any order of living creature is, to say the least, a distasteful idea. Your assertion that the “logical” response to the injustices of the patriarchy is to murder all men is frankly absurd. To my knowledge, humans have not yet developed the capacity for parthenogenesis. You said earlier that it would be better if all men had never been born; I would like to counter that it would not have been better if my father had never been born, nor his father, nor your fathers, nor any man who ever had or will have a daughter in his line. The idea of exterminating men is a thought exercise. It is not a proposal to be debated, nor a position to be defended. Do not call in earnest for the effective extermination of the human species and then accuse your opponents of illogic. Do not accuse those opponents of stupidity or small-mindedness because they do not take your side in a slightly pointless question. Do not. I am guessing from the way your tone has veered into impatience and frustration, even abusiveness, that this is an extremely personal, perhaps triggering question for you. I am sorry. I don’t mean to pry, but is there something deeper here for you? Logged

shermanvolvo Board Mod Sapphire Posts: 4052 Eliminating menz « Reply #16 on: July 04, 2007, 03:19:42 PM » Quote from: mAndrea on July 04, 2007, 02:45:30 PM “Women are just as bad! We’d oppress those less abled than ourselves!” But we sure as shit wouldn’t oppress each other, now would we? And frankly, the assumption that we “are just as bad” at engaging in deliberate oppressions has not been established. The opposite seems to be more prevalent. Once an injustice is pointed out, most feminists seem to change their ways pretty quickly. I wish you were right. I really do. Perhaps feminist women are quick to reflect and change (although I have certainly battled with feminists oppressing transgendered women and the tokenism of Aboriginal women – and other marginalized women – is appalling) but there are a lot of women out there trying to tell me what I can and cannot do with a pregnancy, women who Queer bash, etc. Part of the oppressor / oppressed cycle is that groups of oppressed people oppress others. I am reminded of a quote by an African-American feminist (whose name escapes me) in which she states “We fight alongside Black men against racism, and we struggle against them with sexism” or something along those lines. Now I would like to address what I perceive to be disrespect on this forum. We can disagree with each other and still be allies. In fact, it is important for us to be able to listen to opposing world views (etc); this is how we learn. Belittling those who disagree with us is destructive – to ourselves, to others, and to feminism as a whole. Please, let’s remain respectful at all times. If we are frustrated, please take time to ‘cool off’ if it is going to affect one’s post. Namaste, Monika Logged Abortion – when sacrificing chickens just isn’t enough. -Militant Grammarian You cannot be both “pro-life” and anti-zombie.

Curiouser Guest Eliminating menz « Reply #17 on: July 04, 2007, 03:50:35 PM » mAndrea, methinks you have become so split off from those dreaded, illogical ‘emotions’ that you no longer recognize what is driving your own behavior. In a sense you’ve internalized patriarchal behavior to a degree that you are behaving just like a man. You are dismissing the evidence of our personal experiences as bases for our arguments, while at the same time denying that you have any personal experiences of your own that might drive you to behave as you do. Yes, I’m assuming. Your comments are not logical – they are, as someone said above, ‘thought exercises.’ You offer no REAL, practical solutions that take into account the very different personal circumstances that each woman on this board has to navigate to get through the minefield that patriarchy is for a radical feminist. You dismiss our personal experiences out of hand as ‘emotional’. That is simply, blatantly rude, and is not about engaging in ‘logical’ conversation; it is about disrespecting the opinions of others. You appear not to be able or willing to engage in actual ‘discussion’. You fire off your snide word-bombs of anger and sarcasm, and then expect someone to engage with you ‘rationally’??? Bullshit. You are being passive-aggressive, and attempting to hid your very ANGRY, venomous feelings behind a smokescreen of ‘logic’. When your so-called ‘abstract’ comments in fact directly point at behaviors that some of us personally engage in, it’s pretty hard not to take them personally – “Mothers of sons are part of the problem” is going to be perceived as a personal attack to mothers of sons. What would you have them do, realistically? Murder their sons in cold blood? I mean seriously, answer the damn question with a real, relevant-to-real-life answer. Logged

Curiouser Guest Eliminating menz « Reply #18 on: July 04, 2007, 05:24:30 PM » Quote from: thebewilderness on July 04, 2007, 04:24:35 PM Mothers of sons are indeed part of the problem. As a mother of sons, and grandsons, I am fully aware of this simple fact. The more of us who examine our obedience to the patriarchy myths, the more honest we are in how and why we support these myths, the better equipped we are to resist. bewilderness, I actually agree with this statement, as it seems clear to me that mothers in patriarchy are bound to be complicit in the furtherance of same in their own children. Which is at least part of why we have this board, in an attempt to become aware of how we are part of our own oppression and the oppression of others. Quote mAndrea has a solution. It is an extreme solution, an extraordinary solution, and to me a distasteful solution, but a solution none the less. A solution in what sense? Only in our heads. In the real world in which all of us actually live, I don’t see any of us killing any of the men in our lives. Yes there are some women who have made that choice, but I doubt any of the posters here would actually choose that path. So it’s an abstraction, not meaningful. I think what is needed is to find a middle ground between the extreme, fiery rhetoric and the absorbed-in-the-details-but-missing-the-bigger-picture microview. Quote Throughout her arguments there runs a thread of, look, look, how can you not see what is so obvious to me. I think we can all relate to feeling that way. Yes, I do see this. I also see this view being used as a verbal weapon to try to bludgeon other posters into agreement, which never works. If any of us want to be ‘heard’, I think our comments have to at least be respectful of the point of view of our ‘listener’, especially when we disagree. Quote I realize that cheap shots are the tools we have been trained to use, but I wish that we would try to go after the argument rather that the personal skills of the person making the argument. I agree. Are you suggesting that I’m using cheap shots? Not being snarky, I’d really like to know. Arrrgh, just realized I’m becoming part of the terminal derailment of this thread. Apologies to the original poster. Logged

HazelStone Sapphire Posts: 667 Cardamom? Carda-YUM! Eliminating menz « Reply #19 on: July 04, 2007, 11:51:53 PM » Quote A solution in what sense? Only in our heads. In the real world in which all of us actually live, I don’t see any of us killing any of the men in our lives. I feel i should state a defense of mAndrea’s position which I believe was actually to “kill men off” by attrition, rather than actually killing all men. She recommended electing to not bear male children and leave nursing them and rearing any born ones before this very literal “boycott” to be reared by men. Men would in essence die out, not be killed off. If you believe abortion is not murder, which I do. I don’t agree with this or think it is realistic, but she did not actually argue killing off the men. Logged Women are still less significant, have less privacy, less integrity, less self- determination. This means that women have less freedom. Freedom is not an abstraction, nor is a little of it enough. A little more of it is not enough either. -Andrea Dworkin

Sasha Global Moderator Sapphire Posts: 3746 Alice Paul again Eliminating menz « Reply #20 on: July 05, 2007, 08:58:01 AM » Let me add my voice to those concerned with the tone of this thread. That said, I believe that much of this discussion misses the entire nature of patriarchy or any system of oppression. Killing men or anyone else won’t solve a thing. This is about a system, not about the individuals who are both victims and oppressors. Women who were born and socialized into a patriarchial society have internalized its tenets quite as much as the men have. Were this not so, they would not doing such a stellar job of rearing the children with the same values and behaviors. (Yes, I know. It isn’t only women who rear children. But it mostly is. And I’m using this as an example of how women work against their self-interest.) In my view an analysis of how real change might happen would, of necessity, deal with how to change the social structures that support patriarchy instead of how to kill off some of the most egregious perpetrators. Logged

delphyne Guest Eliminating menz « Reply #21 on: July 05, 2007, 11:04:46 AM » I’m not sure if getting rid of men is the solution either, although it’s certainly logical given how many thousands of years they’ve had to stop raping, attacking, exploiting and killing us and how little any of them have done to fight the system or even change it slightly. As for women bringing up patriarchs, it’s men who train boys to hate and despise women – whatever women are doing they do to survive under a system that oppresses them and that gives them tiny rewards for supporting it. Blaiming women for patriarchy is not unlike blaming people of colour for white supremacy or gay and lesbian people for our heterosexist society. Misogyny is passed down from father to son. I’m sure if there are men around here who want to identify themselves they could tell us about their initiations into woman-hating from their fathers, their brothers and their male peers. Torture porn is just one example: women don’t make and distribute this stuff, men do, and they are sending out a clear message to their brothers about how to treat women. Logged

Sasha Global Moderator Sapphire Posts: 3746 Alice Paul again Eliminating menz « Reply #22 on: July 05, 2007, 11:14:11 AM » Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. I am not blaming women. I am blaming a system with the name of patriarchy. Everyone in it is affected by it. It is impossible not to be. Ridding oneself of any set of individuals in the system will do very little to change the system itself. That requires more radical solutions. Logged

shermanvolvo Board Mod Sapphire Posts: 4052 Eliminating menz « Reply #23 on: July 05, 2007, 11:18:34 AM » By this same note, killing white people is necessary for eradicating racism, and str8 people for getting rid of heterosexism and homophobia and transphobia. I am not saying that is a bad idea (although as a woman who is privileged b/c she is white, I want to live!) *Wink Logged Abortion – when sacrificing chickens just isn’t enough. -Militant Grammarian You cannot be both “pro-life” and anti-zombie.

justicewalks Azure Posts: 59 Eliminating menz « Reply #24 on: July 05, 2007, 11:34:49 AM » It is reasonable to consider the usefulness of eradicating males in eliminating the patriarchy because males actually use their inherent maleness (penises, greater physical strength, etc.) to oppress women. When white people start oppressing POC with their very whiteness, the straightness of their hair, the narrowness of their noses, the translucence of their skin, then maybe the analogy will be more apt. As it stands, whiteness is merely a socially constructed privilege, whereas maleness is, always has been, and will remain (barring scientific intervention) a physical one as well. Logged

delphyne Guest Eliminating menz « Reply #25 on: July 05, 2007, 11:50:59 AM » Quote from: Sasha on July 05, 2007, 11:14:11 AM Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. I am not blaming women. I am blaming a system with the name of patriarchy. Everyone in it is affected by it. It is impossible not to be. Ridding oneself of any set of individuals in the system will do very little to change the system itself. That requires more radical solutions. It’s why I prefer the term male supremacy, because it names the agents. It’s a real shame that a useful term like patriarchy which describes the systemic oppression of women by men has become obscured so people can now argue that women are patriarchs too – collaborators maybe, oppressors of women, no. Look where the power lies: it certainly doesn’t lie with women. If it did we would have been able to stop men oppressing us. Which isn’t to say of course that women aren’t agents in other oppressive power structures e.g. white women in white supremacy, or heterosexual women in our heterosexist society, just that women are not responsible for the patriarchy. And certainly ridding ourselves of men would stop rape and most violence as men are the main perpetrators of these two acts. That’s not something to be sniffed at. However for me it’s more of a hypothetical, because I’m not sure I could advocate it but I can’t criticise any woman for thinking along those lines. « Last Edit: July 05, 2007, 11:54:20 AM by delphyne » Logged

Vera Global Moderator Sapphire Posts: 1502 Eliminating menz « Reply #26 on: July 05, 2007, 11:56:14 AM » There is no logic in believing that mass male extinction will bring about the paradise at end-time. Don’t get me wrong–I’m as capable as anyone else here of fantasizing about a male-free world. I use to sing this, when I was just a wee blamer: Mabel, Mabel, I’ve been thinking What a fine world this would be If the men were all transported Far beyond the northern sea! (My dad taught it to me. He thought it was funny; sort of the musical equivalent of dressing your kid in a jokey outfit.) But patriarchy is not a physical object. It is a pernicious idea that has parasitized the human brain, male and female. One need only look at Ann Coulter to realize this. (*) Real revolution takes place when we’re able to choose the red pill, swallow it down, and open our eyes to see the wiring under the floorboards of patriarchy. And once we’ve had that experience, finding a way to share it, promote it, inspire it in others. That’s where I’m stuck. How do we get the parasite out of the human brain? Through art? Theater? Direct action? Discussion boards on the Internet? All of the above? When this board began, I suggested that we choose one manifestation of the patriarchy–harassment of women in blogs and other websites–and try direct, web-based action to make our presence felt. There are more than 500 of us participating in this forum. If we could get half of the people in this forum to each post four replies to a misogynist asshat blog of our choosing, that would give the blogger 1000 problems. Currently, misogynistic asshat bloggers have a get-out-of-the-shitpile-you’ve-created-free card, and when these guys write their steaming piles, if anyone objects at all she’s pretty much shouted down by the boyz. I for one would love to see 1000 objections whenever someone writes approvingly of torture porn, or any porn for that matter. —————– * Perhaps we need a new law of web conversation; one that holds that once Ann Coulter is invoked, the dialog is over. For now, though, I’m using her as an example. Logged

shermanvolvo Board Mod Sapphire Posts: 4052 Eliminating menz « Reply #27 on: July 05, 2007, 12:37:41 PM » Quote from: Vera on July 05, 2007, 11:56:14 AM When this board began, I suggested that we choose one manifestation of the patriarchy–harassment of women in blogs and other websites–and try direct, web-based action to make our presence felt. There are more than 500 of us participating in this forum. If we could get half of the people in this forum to each post four replies to a misogynist asshat blog of our choosing, that would give the blogger 1000 problems. Currently, misogynistic asshat bloggers have a get-out-of-the-shitpile-you’ve-created-free card, and when these guys write their steaming piles, if anyone objects at all she’s pretty much shouted down by the boyz. This is an interesting idea. The only thing I am worried about is legitimizing something so ridiculous by actively opposing it (in that manner). For instance, I do not engage in debate with anti-choicers. To me, choice is not debatable. I will provide information for individuals who are interested, but I will not legitimize anto-choicers ridiculous stances (i.e. it hurts women, it kills babies, yada yada) by engaging. Instead, I use my pro-choice efforts to put pressure on government (for example). Does that make sense? Logged Abortion – when sacrificing chickens just isn’t enough. -Militant Grammarian You cannot be both “pro-life” and anti-zombie.

shermanvolvo Board Mod Sapphire Posts: 4052 Eliminating menz « Reply #28 on: July 05, 2007, 12:44:40 PM » One thing that has annoyed me about many forms of feminism, including liberal and radical feminisms, is the “patriarchy trumps all” belief – when we fail to see how we are PRIVILEGED as well as oppressed. I am not, of course, saying all liberal and radical feminists tote this line, but I am seeing it emerge on this list. How can we expect others to change (or want to eradicate them because of their privilege and thereby non-desire to change), when we cannot reflect upon our own privilege? Just a thought, not directed at any one in particular. Monika Logged Abortion – when sacrificing chickens just isn’t enough. -Militant Grammarian You cannot be both “pro-life” and anti-zombie.

delphyne Guest Eliminating menz « Reply #29 on: July 05, 2007, 12:55:24 PM » I think it’s usuallly helpful to provide concrete examples shermanvolvo, otherwise people won’t have any idea what you are objecting to. I certainly think it is important for feminists to challenge all other forms of oppression and to acknowledge the privileges we may have. On the other hand, as no other political movements are fighting the oppression of women as women above all else (and why should they?), it’s left to us to fight the patriarchy. Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

shermanvolvo Board Mod Sapphire Posts: 4052 Eliminating menz « Reply #30 on: July 05, 2007, 01:28:36 PM » Quote from: delphyne on July 05, 2007, 12:55:24 PM I think it’s usuallly helpful to provide concrete examples shermanvolvo, otherwise people won’t have any idea what you are objecting to. I certainly think it is important for feminists to challenge all other forms of oppression and to acknowledge the privileges we may have. On the other hand, as no other political movements are fighting the oppression of women as women above all else (and why should they?), it’s left to us to fight the patriarchy. Hi Absolutely, I am happy to provide concrete examples, but I don’t want to direct anything at anyone on the list (because I am not speaking directly to anyone’s post, but just a general thought that came up) so I will provide some I have witnessed in real life… 1) “I am not racist”. I hear this from a lot of feminists. The thing is, we have been socialized in a racist culture (as we have been socialized in a sexist culture). When I hear this, I typically gently mention this and say “Do you mean that you are anti-racist? I would like to think that I am non-racist, but I have been socialized in a racist culture. And even though I myself am not racist, does not mean that I haven’t been awarded certain privileges b/c I am white. I recognize how being a white woman has alotted me privileges that, for example, a First Nations woman is denied” 2) Not recognizing transwomen as women. 3) Assuming that because our women’s organizations are predominantly or exclusively white is “just because WOmen of Colour aren’t interested.” How are we reaching out to women of colour? How are we addressing our own internalized racism? Are we addressing issues faced by other women? 4) Expecting women of colour to teach us about racism, GLBTQ individuals to teach us about heterosexism, and homo/transphobia 5) Believing that sexism is the “biggest” oppression and that all the other oppressions will be solved if we just get rid of patriarchy. That somehow women are “more” oppressed than other oppressed groups. As for your note that other progressive movements aren’t addressing patriarchal oppression, and therefore we must, ABSOLUTELY! When you look at (for example) the abolition of slavery, women who opposed slavery and then said “Hey, wait a minute, we are getting fucked too” were told that they were deviating from the ’cause’ and therefore weakening it, as if we can only focus on one oppression, and it isn’t necessary to see how they are all intertwined. (A neat discussion of how women’s issues have been put second to other progressive movements can be found in “Feminism as Anarchism” by Lynne Farrow (in Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader; she sums up her excellent argument in this great quote (tongue in cheek): “When the essential struggle is fought and won, women then will come into their own. Women must wait. Women must help the larger cause.”) I challenge all of us – and myself most of all – to look at the ways in which we have internalized all oppressions, and how these oppressions intertwine. I am all about smashing patriarchy. But I want to smash racism. And heterosexism. And homophobia. And transphobia. And ageism. And ableism. And destruction of the environment. I want it all, baby!! Logged Abortion – when sacrificing chickens just isn’t enough. -Militant Grammarian You cannot be both “pro-life” and anti-zombie.

Shabnam Sapphire Posts: 741 Type of Onion Eliminating menz « Reply #31 on: July 05, 2007, 01:31:55 PM » A note about male babies and other things: Mothers everywhere are oftentimes sacrificing their lives for the next generation of oppressors. This is evident. Mothers in general are generally opposed to putting their offspring in harms way and this is a good thing. Despite being faced with daily murder, torture, humiliation and degradation, women in general have never played dirty to achieve their aims, feminist struggles are rarely if ever violent. For this we get absolutely no recognition, and on the whole our aims are only met after several decades of struggling. We have to address the question as to whether feminism should use violent means or only passive resistance. I guess this is being discussed on other threads. It is vital that women need to take full control of the production of human beings, and this “merely” means taking control of their bodies. In an ideal world, this would be a an incontestable right, but in our world it is not the case. What can we do? An interim measure might be to abort male fetuses and refusing to bring up sons. Female fetuses and girl children in India and China are horribly treated at present, denied the best food, health care and education, relative to their brothers. In some countries women are being forced to neglect their daughters at the expense of their sons. Is refusing to nurse a male neonate really the same as killing it? Isn’t it just passive resistance? If men want boys, they can bloody well take care of them. Men everywhere are commiting abominable atrocities, and are barely subject to criticism, whereas mothers are scrtutinized ruthlessly. I am lucky that I live in First World country (not the US) and have complete control over my reproductive choices, but I my parents where originally from India. When I hear about how girls and women are treated in the country of my forebearer, I can’t help but imagining myself in their shoes. If my mind were suddenly to be transplanted into an Indian woman who has been forced into early marriage and forced to bear children. I for one would stuff my sons. There must be women who are sufficiently badly treated in this world for them to quite legitimately refuse to care for sons they were forced to bear. Men everywhere should be fucking grateful for the care they all receive from their mothers and female relatives. Bringing up children is undervalued and underpaid. We are bringing up the new generation of oppressors for free. Logged

shermanvolvo Board Mod Sapphire Posts: 4052 Eliminating menz « Reply #32 on: July 05, 2007, 01:43:41 PM » Quote from: Shabnam on July 05, 2007, 01:31:55 PM We have to address the question as to whether feminism should use violent means or only passive resistance. It depends on what you mean by violent means. Is property destruction violent? Or only violence against people? I have had this discussion many times with my partner, specifically “What would you be willing to do for revolution?” As I don’t trust government and know I am already on government lists, I won’t share my answers here. But it is a most interesting question. Logged Abortion – when sacrificing chickens just isn’t enough. -Militant Grammarian You cannot be both “pro-life” and anti-zombie.

justicewalks Azure Posts: 59 Eliminating menz « Reply #33 on: July 05, 2007, 02:13:47 PM » Shabnam, YES. Quote One thing that has annoyed me about many forms of feminism, including liberal and radical feminisms, is the “patriarchy trumps all” belief – when we fail to see how we are PRIVILEGED as well as oppressed. For women, with few exceptions, race and class, unlike sex, are still indicators of their relation to men. A woman’s whiteness is often only as good as the whiteness of her least white child, for example, as I’m sure many a white mother of a half-white biological child, or nonwhite adopted child can tell you. (Nonwhite mothers of half-white children can also tell you about the rise in esteem that they are afforded.) Similarly, a woman belongs to the social/financial class of her father/husband. The rags-to-riches wife of a male billionaire will lunch with the other ladies in his class. The poolboy-to-riches husband of a wealthy woman will most decidedly NOT be having brandy in the cigar room with the other men of her class. Race and class have more to do with men (and patriarchy) than with women, even though women often stand to benefit from these discriminations, which is no accident, because if we weren’t given the occasional crumb, we’d have revolted already. “Patriarchy trumps all” isn’t about one oppression being worse than the others. It’s about the fact that even if every woman on the planet decided at this moment to stop reaping the benefits of a race/class hierarchy, the hierarchy itself would continue in a racist/classist manner because MEN, WHO ARE AT THE TOP OF THE HIERARCHY, WILL STILL BE RACIST, CLASSIST, ETC. They’re the ones running things after all. Logged

Sasha Global Moderator Sapphire Posts: 3746 Alice Paul again Eliminating menz « Reply #34 on: July 05, 2007, 02:45:40 PM » Quote from: delphyne on July 05, 2007, 12:55:24 PM I think it’s usuallly helpful to provide concrete examples shermanvolvo, otherwise people won’t have any idea what you are objecting to. I certainly think it is important for feminists to challenge all other forms of oppression and to acknowledge the privileges we may have. Then I am going to suggest that telling others how they ought post, regardless of how passively it is couched, is an example of what you complain about. I hae an idea what she is objecting to. If you do not you could just say so clearly instead of invoking some normative ideal. Logged

justicewalks Azure Posts: 59 Eliminating menz « Reply #35 on: July 05, 2007, 03:07:37 PM » Yes, Sasha, heaven guard us against a normative expectation of clarity and elucidation! What on earth would we do without a moderator here to tell us we don’t have to give people examples if we don’t want to (you were aware of that, weren’t you shermanvolvo? I’d hate to think you provided examples under duress). The “privilege” of requesting (passively, no less) clarification must surely be dismantled before all others! Logged

Schia Cobalt Posts: 258 Hazardous material Eliminating menz « Reply #36 on: July 05, 2007, 03:13:41 PM » Some thoughts on male infanticide: I can see the point that posters are making with regards to male infanticide. I would wager that in past ages, the proportion of males in the population was probably lower than it is today, given that male infants have higher mortality rates than females, and the male propensity for war (and other stupid behaviour). One might argue that we do have an “over-population” of males. There is some genetic evidence to suggest that ancient effective male populations were smaller than effective female populations (Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 2006, 16:611-617). However, I just cannot see that infanticide could be a practical solution; it just wouldn’t happen. We are all here because infanticidal behaviours are selected against in humans. On mulling this over, it occurred to me that another possibility could be pre-fertilisation selection of sperm. Sperm can be “recognised” as carrying X or Y chromosomes (see here for a patent application in this regard http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1237924.html*); this means that treatments could be developed which effectively trap and destroy only Y carrying sperm, with the result that only female children would be conceived. This treatment could be applied in the same manner as the new microbiocide gels which are presently under development for prevention of HIV infection. Part of the rationale behind the development of these gels is that women do not have to negotiate with their male partner for their use – they can simply use them. Any other Evil ScientistsTM out there want to run with this idea? *Sciencey stuff: Quote Antibodies against an epitope of a sex-chromosome-specific molecule of the invention, and complement may also be used to kill X-sperm or Y-sperm in vitro or in vivo. In particular, antibodies against an epitope of a sex-chromosome-specific molecule of the invention, and complement may be placed in the reproductive tract of the female animal prior to mating to kill X-or Y-sperm. Logged Radical Feminist Spinster Aunt-in-Training!

delphyne Guest Eliminating menz « Reply #37 on: July 05, 2007, 03:18:16 PM » I didn’t think it was couched that passively, Sasha but I’ll defer to your opinion on that. I asked Shermanvolvo for concrete examples and I know that I’m not the only person who needs them, as most people who haven’t fully acknowledged their privileges (and none of those who are privileged have) need fairly specific examples to challenge their attitudes, beliefs and behaviours. I was always grateful to Audre Lorde for her list of white feminists’ racist actions in her book Sister Outsider because it spelled out the kind of behaviour that was wrong and oppressive and I could see where I needed to work harder – I realise she didn’t write them for white feminists benefit, but I was able to learn from them. It’s not easy to change if you don’t know what to change (although I’m not going to say categorically that it’s impossible). « Last Edit: July 05, 2007, 03:20:27 PM by delphyne » Logged

Sasha Global Moderator Sapphire Posts: 3746 Alice Paul again Eliminating menz « Reply #38 on: July 05, 2007, 03:25:45 PM » Quote from: justicewalks on July 05, 2007, 03:07:37 PM Yes, Sasha, heaven guard us against a normative expectation of clarity and elucidation! What on earth would we do without a moderator here to tell us we don’t have to give people examples if we don’t want to (you were aware of that, weren’t you shermanvolvo? I’d hate to think you provided examples under duress). The “privilege” of requesting (passively, no less) clarification must surely be dismantled before all others! I wasn’t moderating. When I do, I say so. I believe my volunteer status still allows me to have opinions, whether or not they agree with yours. Also your tag-team act is tiresome as is your snotty presentation. Just my opinion, of course. Logged

Bitey Sapphire Posts: 1282 Eliminating menz « Reply #39 on: July 05, 2007, 03:36:01 PM » Quote from: justicewalks on July 05, 2007, 03:07:37 PM Yes, Sasha, heaven guard us against a normative expectation of clarity and elucidation! What on earth would we do without a moderator here to tell us we don’t have to give people examples if we don’t want to (you were aware of that, weren’t you shermanvolvo? I’d hate to think you provided examples under duress). The “privilege” of requesting (passively, no less) clarification must surely be dismantled before all others! Why does it gotta be like that? Sasha, as I saw it, was objecting to a slightly condescending tone, which I for one appreciate. Perhaps the tone was inadvertently condescending, but condescending it was. Your reply, justicewalks, is also objectionable. I don’t come here to be subjected to this kind of sarcasm and sniping. It is disrespectful and upsetting. I am distressed that we can’t keep any more civil tongues in our heads than these. You’re making me not want to read what you have to say, and I don’t think that’s how it should be. Logged

shermanvolvo Board Mod Sapphire Posts: 4052 Eliminating menz « Reply #40 on: July 05, 2007, 03:57:18 PM » I read the question for examples as genuine interest. As feminists, we are often able to look at the ways we are oppressed, but not necessarily how we are privileged or otherwise affected by the racist, classist patriarchy in which we live. I knew how much I had internalized racism a few years ago when I was walking down the street and there were three young men walking towards me. They were Black men, and were talking and joking amongst themselves. I had an immediate ‘fight or flight’ reaction in my body and then was like “Holy shit!” A lot of women with whom I have shared this story will say, “Well, it was because they were men.” Perhaps that was part of it, but I don’t think it was the whole story. So while I am committed to anti-oppression, I have layers of shit to deal with. We all do. Monika Logged Abortion – when sacrificing chickens just isn’t enough. -Militant Grammarian You cannot be both “pro-life” and anti-zombie.

Curiouser Guest Eliminating menz « Reply #41 on: July 05, 2007, 04:37:11 PM » Quote I don’t come here to be subjected to this kind of sarcasm and sniping. It is disrespectful and upsetting. I agree. There’s a suggestion by B Dagger Lee over on a board improvement thread that we do what she used to do as a bartender and ’86′ disruptive people for 24 hrs to give them time to chill. Kind of like a time out. I personally would rather not see us have to put this kind of thing in place, but maybe we’ll have to if we can’t figure out how to play nice all by ourselves. I’m pretty sure most of us know when we’re being snarky or snide, and I think we can find other ways to express what we’re feeling without making personal remarks, and without having to create authority figures to enforce civil behavior between us. I offer a truce and suggest that we try to find a way to discuss our differences respectfully. Many of us here are already traumatized, indeed some folks to the point of PTSD, by various kinds of abuse and disrespect throughout our lives. I don’t think it adds anything to our community to reproduce that kind of atmosphere here. I hope for this to be a place where we are allies and support each other even when our opinions differ. I struggle with the concept of ‘agreeing to disagree’ as much as anybody, and have as much to learn about civil discourse as anyone. I would like to ask that we work together to learn how to disagree without taking pot shots at each other. Maybe if we think of it as trying to create a virtual feminist collaborative and imagine having to work things out as if we’re neighbors sharing common back yards, we’ll realize that we can’t afford to fight amongst ourselves. There are so few of us and our blaming energy so precious, to squander even a drop of it on fighting with each other is heartbreaking, not to mention pathetic. I’d also like to note that, to me, creating a dichotomy between logic and emotion re-creates the oppressive binary thinking that we’re working so hard to escape. Judging people for how we think is not useful, nor is telling anybody that one way of thinking is right while another is wrong. The ability to discuss a topic without showing emotion is not necessarily a ‘superior’ mode of communication. It is *a* mode of communication, and many of us don’t subscribe to it. Logged

delphyne Guest Eliminating menz « Reply #42 on: July 05, 2007, 04:54:52 PM » I think the moderators could always try leading the way. Some of them don’t seem to be strangers to baiting and taking pot-shots as we’ve seen on this thread and on other parts of the forums. I’m sorry if that comment to shermanvolvo came across as condescending. I really do think it’s helpful to actually point particular things out rather than making general criticisms which don’t actually address anything concrete and thus don’t provide the opportunity for change. I’ll be careful about the passive voice in future. Logged

shermanvolvo Board Mod Sapphire Posts: 4052 Eliminating menz « Reply #43 on: July 05, 2007, 05:06:30 PM » Quote from: delphyne on July 05, 2007, 04:54:52 PM I really do think it’s helpful to actually point particular things out rather than making general criticisms which don’t actually address anything concrete and thus don’t provide the opportunity for change. Now this is feeling like a pot shot. Not actually addressing anything concrete? Ummm…. My comment was: “One thing that has annoyed me about many forms of feminism, including liberal and radical feminisms, is the “patriarchy trumps all” belief – when we fail to see how we are PRIVILEGED as well as oppressed.” I would hardly call this generalized. I am asking us to look at how we are PRIVILEGED. Very specific. *Getting increasingly frustrated, Monika Logged Abortion – when sacrificing chickens just isn’t enough. -Militant Grammarian You cannot be both “pro-life” and anti-zombie.

delphyne Guest Eliminating menz « Reply #44 on: July 05, 2007, 05:11:38 PM » What I was referring to was when you said there was a belief that “patriarchy trumps all”. I don’t think I’ve seen any examples of that and am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt that they don’t actually think it (although it’s possible I’m mistaken). On the other hand if you’ve seen examples of this kind of approach or attitude, it does indeed need pointing out. « Last Edit: July 05, 2007, 05:15:28 PM by delphyne » Logged

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

« previous next » Mark unread | Print

	Author	Topic: Eliminating menz (Read 5 times)
0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

shermanvolvo Board Mod Sapphire Posts: 4052 Eliminating menz « Reply #45 on: July 05, 2007, 05:57:21 PM » I, unfortunately, have met numerous so-called feminists who really believe that if patriarchy was solved, all the world’s problems would be solved. I have similar disagreement with those who believe that if ‘women ruled the world, everything would be peaceful.’ Monika Logged Abortion – when sacrificing chickens just isn’t enough. -Militant Grammarian You cannot be both “pro-life” and anti-zombie.

Vera Global Moderator Sapphire Posts: 1502 Eliminating menz « Reply #46 on: July 05, 2007, 06:45:52 PM » Quote I have similar disagreement with those who believe that if ‘women ruled the world, everything would be peaceful.’ Well, we certainly have disproved that on this forum! Logged

Kit Board Mod Sapphire Posts: 1935 Eliminating menz « Reply #47 on: July 05, 2007, 06:46:16 PM » Thank you Monika for that list of examples of privilege. I agree with your choices to include as priorities and for participating in such an honest manner. Dr. Seuss and the Sneeches. We will always need to stay vigilant. http://groups.msn.com/DrSeuss/didyouknow.msnw Medusa, I am blown away by your honesty and ability to evaluate your life. Choosing the father really may be a huge part of how a child turns out, and another privilege that most women are denied. Your oldest is lucky to have a mother like you. If he decides to change, he has someone to turn to for help. My sisters and I can end up arguing because of how we are thinking of a subject even when we agree. I am too logical and rational(by them) and it pisses them off that I don’t get emotional about a topic. They take it personal as if I don’t care and love them dearly. It seems to be the same way on a forum where we all want change but each one of us has a different style and perspective. I look forward to getting to know all of you better so we can find a rythm to our discussion and not offend. 71.68.58.78

Sasha Global Moderator Sapphire Posts: 3746 Alice Paul again Eliminating menz « Reply #48 on: July 08, 2007, 08:27:27 PM » I do believe that this thread has gone sufficiently off topic. I hope if a similar thread begins folks will treat one another more respectfully and refrain from advocating genocide. <– This is moderation. Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]