Taylor Swift and Katy Perry are ruining women

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Taylor Swift and Katy Perry are ruining women

Yup, now not giving into the pressure of conforming to male masturbation fantasies is ruining women

 

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/taylor-swift-katy-perry-hollywood-398095

 

 

 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
I think this article tells

I think this article tells us a lot more about the author and her insecurities than it does about either Taylor Swift or Katy Perry. Personally, I can't stand listening to the top 40 anymore which I consider a good thing. Every generation should have their own flavor of music. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I think

Beyond Saving wrote:

I think this article tells us a lot more about the author and her insecurities than it does about either Taylor Swift or Katy Perry. Personally, I can't stand listening to the top 40 anymore which I consider a good thing. Every generation should have their own flavor of music. 

I would have to agree with that.

Plus, I can't think of a time when music/sex was not indivisible.  Whether it was the Grace Slick and Janis Joplin type of women of the sixties,(before my time, but I thought Grace was hot) the Madonna and Cyndi Laupers of the eighties, or the ones of today ?

Hell, this doesn't just apply to women and pop either, IMO.

In spite of their talent ( or lack, depending upon your tastes) what has  Rock been selling with the images of, say,  Jim Morrison, David Bowie, Ted Nugent , Mick Jagger, Axl Rose, Iggy Pop and Gavin Rossdale. Granted, these are all very different types of musicians and singers, but one would have to be blind to not see that the imagery of sexuality was not present at one time or another.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


thelilith
thelilith's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2012-07-13
User is offlineOffline
 Yeah, divorcees living

 

Yeah, divorcees living with mom, having porn experiences every night at home, not having to pay for anyone for dinner, or lift as much as a finger, and years ago they had to work hard for porn - no wonder women are competing so hard in the rag-trade in evening wear! What is the world coming to?

 

Real change will come when it is brought about, not by your ego, but by reality.
Tony de Mello


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15620
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Again I wonder what the

Again I wonder what the point of the OP is. If I am missing something please correct me.

Are you saying boys or guys should not think about sex, or express those feelings? Sorry. I am not into Taylor Swift. But you have got to be kidding me if girls don't think about fucking Justin Bieber. Not suggesting anybody have unprotected sex or have orgies in the street.

But seriously, how the hell do you think we got here? My dad stuck his penis in my mom's vagina.

I wanted to fuck Agnetha just like guys today want to fuck Taylor Swift.  Saying that doesn't mean if face to face they will say it like that, and most certainly most sane people dont force sex on someone else against their will. It isn't unnatural to have sexual thoughts.

And I do not think any guy or woman has any right to tell anyone else how they should dress.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15620
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Beyond

harleysportster wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I think this article tells us a lot more about the author and her insecurities than it does about either Taylor Swift or Katy Perry. Personally, I can't stand listening to the top 40 anymore which I consider a good thing. Every generation should have their own flavor of music. 

I would have to agree with that.

Plus, I can't think of a time when music/sex was not indivisible.  Whether it was the Grace Slick and Janis Joplin type of women of the sixties,(before my time, but I thought Grace was hot) the Madonna and Cyndi Laupers of the eighties, or the ones of today ?

Hell, this doesn't just apply to women and pop either, IMO.

In spite of their talent ( or lack, depending upon your tastes) what has  Rock been selling with the images of, say,  Jim Morrison, David Bowie, Ted Nugent , Mick Jagger, Axl Rose, Iggy Pop and Gavin Rossdale. Granted, these are all very different types of musicians and singers, but one would have to be blind to not see that the imagery of sexuality was not present at one time or another.

No shit, you talk about guys in music, be it pop or rock. You can not tell me women didn't look at Nugent or Roth and want to get back stage and do the mattress mombo.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
This goes to the OP Ms Fingers (fingers to the Genitals not Ok)

This Casey Kasem and this goes out to Captain Pineapple from Dana

Song title :: "My Chemical Romance" song only "I'm not Okay"


Follow LINK :: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VySkflgIlRA

Still no lunch, see ya (^・ω・^=)~


thelilith
thelilith's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2012-07-13
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Again I wonder

Brian37 wrote:
Again I wonder what the point of the OP is. If I am missing something please correct me.

Wasn’t the Cpt being ironic…..just sayin’ ?

 

 

Real change will come when it is brought about, not by your ego, but by reality.
Tony de Mello


thelilith
thelilith's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2012-07-13
User is offlineOffline
 Cpt_pineapple wrote:Yup,

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Yup, now not giving into the pressure of conforming to male masturbation fantasies is ruining women

 

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/taylor-swift-katy-perry-hollywood-398095

 

 

 

 

Camille Paglia is 65, so she’s not in the first flush of youth but she does have a point, she’s not just jealous. Equal rights for women are not just about being allowed to wear what clothes you like.  

If America really does want to support the cause of women’s rights, why doesn’t the Senate take action and pass the international bill of rights for women or CEDAW as it’s better known (Convention to Eliminate all Forms of Discrimination against Women)?

Currently the US is the only industrialized, democratic country in the world that doesn’t support this international agreement, only six other States in the UN have failed to approve this treaty - Somalia, Iran, South Sudan, Sudan and two Pacific Islands.

Obama is for ratification of this bill but he doesn’t have the stomach for pushing it forward at the moment. The main opposition for the treaty coming from conservatives and the religious right, who are concerned that CEDAW will challenge the culture and laws of the US.

In arguments against CEDAW, the conservative organization Concerned Women for America cite that ratification of the treaty will: undermine family values, force the US to pay men and women the same – going against the free-market system, give access to abortion services and contraception, create a ‘back door’ for feminists, allow same-sex marriage, legalize prostitution and promote gender –re-education, amongst other things.

Looks like we've got a long way to go y'all.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/06/emily-martin-and-arjun-sethi-on-womens-rights-treaty/1807767/

Real change will come when it is brought about, not by your ego, but by reality.
Tony de Mello


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15620
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
thelilith wrote:Brian37

thelilith wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Again I wonder what the point of the OP is. If I am missing something please correct me.

Wasn’t the Cpt being ironic…..just sayin’ ?

 

 

Then I guess I was slow on the uptake.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
thelilith

Is there some place where more in depth information about this treaty can be read and examined ? Such as reading the treaty itself ?

I would be interested to know why the United States does not currently endorse this treaty, so I would like to hear the anti-arguments as well.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for gender equality and have little to no love for my own government, but it has been my experience that there are a lot of things that may sound good in theory, and do not look so good once the fine print has been examined.

I would like to know more.

Granted, I use the electronic god of google as much as the next man, but it has also been my experience (and I am guilty of it) that if I keep tweaking keywords and search engines, I can usually find something that will support my own confirmation bias.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


thelilith
thelilith's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2012-07-13
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Is

harleysportster wrote:

Is there some place where more in depth information about this treaty can be read and examined ? Such as reading the treaty itself ?

I would be interested to know why the United States does not currently endorse this treaty, so I would like to hear the anti-arguments as well.

 

Glad you are interested. There is information on websites but to summarise CEDAW is short for the Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.   

Sometimes called the Treaty of Rights of Women or can be referred to as the International Bill of Rights for Women.

It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 18 1979 - 30 articles developed by the UN Commission on the Status of Women, it describes the meaning of equality and gives guidelines on how to achieve it. So it has an agenda of action.

Countries that ratify CEDAW agree to take concrete steps to improve the status of women and end discrimination and violence against women.  

This treaty deals with gender inequality within our culture which is visible in many areas, including politics, religion, media, cultural norms, and the workplace but in the West mainly in the two areas concerning violence towards women and inequality in pay in the workplace.

Both men and women receive many messages both overt and covert, that men are more important than women. In this context, it becomes easier for a man to believe that he has the right to be in charge and to control a woman, even if it takes violence. This is not only wrong, it’s against the law. The cost of violence against women in Canada for example, for health care, criminal justice, social services, and lost wages and productivity has been calculated at $4.2 billion per year.  

Interestingly enough, the United States is the only industrialized nation that refuses to ratify CEDAW. Neither will such countries as Sudan, Somalia, and Iran - three nations known for their human rights violations.

What is the reason for this? I touched on the anti-arguments above as opposition mainly comes from conservatives and the religious right who fear this will change US culture and laws.

I think the best way forward is for people to talk of their own experiences (including men) as secrecy and denial are overt methods used to maintain the status quo.

 

Real change will come when it is brought about, not by your ego, but by reality.
Tony de Mello


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
thelilith wrote: Obama is

thelilith wrote:

 

Obama is for ratification of this bill but he doesn’t have the stomach for pushing it forward at the moment. The main opposition for the treaty coming from conservatives and the religious right, who are concerned that CEDAW will challenge the culture and laws of the US.

That was what I was touching upon in regards to anti-arguments. I am certainly no friend to conservatives or any so called "family" rights group, but I am curious as to why the current administration does not have the "stomach" for it.

I think this will be one of the first places where I would begin to look when I have a spare moment.

thelilith wrote:

 give access to abortion services and contraception, create a ‘back door’ for feminists, allow same-sex marriage, legalize prostitution and promote gender –re-education, amongst other things.

Actually, I would be all for those things.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13094
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
'If America really does want

'If America really does want to support the cause of women’s rights, why doesn’t the Senate take action and pass the international bill of rights for women or CEDAW as it’s better known (Convention to Eliminate all Forms of Discrimination against Women)?'

Sexist bullshit. I oppose this. When they decide to form a legitimate organisation with a legitimate concern, like maybe violence and discrimination against PEOPLE, I may give them another thought.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


thelilith
thelilith's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2012-07-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:'If America

Vastet wrote:
'If America really does want to support the cause of women’s rights, why doesn’t the Senate take action and pass the international bill of rights for women or CEDAW as it’s better known (Convention to Eliminate all Forms of Discrimination against Women)?' Sexist bullshit. I oppose this. When they decide to form a legitimate organisation with a legitimate concern, like maybe violence and discrimination against PEOPLE, I may give them another thought.

Yes, women are people too. I expect you agree with the Queer Avengers ‘Transphobic feminism is so 20th century...women's liberation must mean the right to refuse imposed gender roles, to fight for diverse gender expression.'

 

 

 

Real change will come when it is brought about, not by your ego, but by reality.
Tony de Mello


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
thelilith wrote:Vastet

thelilith wrote:

Vastet wrote:
'If America really does want to support the cause of women’s rights, why doesn’t the Senate take action and pass the international bill of rights for women or CEDAW as it’s better known (Convention to Eliminate all Forms of Discrimination against Women)?' Sexist bullshit. I oppose this. When they decide to form a legitimate organisation with a legitimate concern, like maybe violence and discrimination against PEOPLE, I may give them another thought.

Yes, women are people too. I expect you agree with the Queer Avengers ‘Transphobic feminism is so 20th century...women's liberation must mean the right to refuse imposed gender roles, to fight for diverse gender expression.'

  

The word ‘woman’ is not generally seen as a pejorative, although my husband often screams ‘woman, why isn’t my dinner on the table’ when he stumbles in from work. Normally we would think of reappropriation of a word for the female as something like ‘slut’, ‘bitch’ or ‘cow’ but yeah, ‘woman’ can be successfully reclaimed too, why not.

The US hasn’t got a very good record in terms of ratification of human rights treaties in general, not just CEDAW and none have been signed since 2002. The treaties below, help the most vulnerable populations in the world, for example children that have been sold into child prostitution or are subject to sexual and  physical abuse, women who are verbally, physically or emotionally abused by a spouse or partner, mentally ill prisoners who are forced into solitary confinement, unlawful torture victims and the list goes on. 

 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance

Mine Ban Treaty

Convention on Cluster Munitions

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture

 

This document below gives an overview of the above treaties and their importance to the United States. Of course any conservatives who are members here will probably have good reasons why these treaties should not be ratified.

 http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/07/24/united-states-ratification-international-human-rights-treaties

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13094
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
thelilith wrote:Yes, women

thelilith wrote:
Yes, women are people too. I expect you agree with the Queer Avengers ‘Transphobic feminism is so 20th century...women's liberation must mean the right to refuse imposed gender roles, to fight for diverse gender expression.'

Men are people too. But I guess you're fine with violence against men. Sexist feminazi.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:thelilith

Vastet wrote:
thelilith wrote:
Yes, women are people too. I expect you agree with the Queer Avengers ‘Transphobic feminism is so 20th century...women's liberation must mean the right to refuse imposed gender roles, to fight for diverse gender expression.'
Men are people too. But I guess you're fine with violence against men. Sexist feminazi.

Actually, it's polite to ask a question and not make an assumption about someone else's values.  That is how abuse works. Poor boundaries.   Inventing something in your head and making the assumption, lying even, about what someone else stands for and acting as though it is true.

It's a category of verbal abuse - comes under the section Accusation and Blame.  I thought you had done care work and would know this?

 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


thelilith
thelilith's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2012-07-13
User is offlineOffline
Peggotty wrote:Vastet

Peggotty wrote:

Vastet wrote:
thelilith wrote:
Yes, women are people too. I expect you agree with the Queer Avengers ‘Transphobic feminism is so 20th century...women's liberation must mean the right to refuse imposed gender roles, to fight for diverse gender expression.'
Men are people too. But I guess you're fine with violence against men. Sexist feminazi.

Actually, it's polite to ask a question and not make an assumption about someone else's values.  That is how abuse works. Poor boundaries.   Inventing something in your head and making the assumption, lying even, about what someone else stands for and acting as though it is true.

It's a category of verbal abuse - comes under the section Accusation and Blame.  I thought you had done care work and would know this?

 

Cut out the abuse Vastet. Seriously, I am laying down a boundary. Don't put words into my mouth. They are your words not mine.

Real change will come when it is brought about, not by your ego, but by reality.
Tony de Mello


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13094
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Peggotty wrote:Actually,

Peggotty wrote:
Actually, it's polite to ask a question and not make an assumption about someone else's values.

Hypocrisy is fun.... if you're an asshole. Fuck off.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13094
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
"Cut out the abuse Vastet.

"Cut out the abuse Vastet. Seriously, I am laying down a boundary. Don't put words into my mouth. They are your words not mine."

Blow me, feminazi scum. You put words in my mouth, twisting my comment. Turn around is fair play.

FYI, I don't give a rats ass if you get Peg and 50 other people over on your computer to agree with you, I'll tear them all a new asshole.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I oppose this.

Vastet wrote:
I oppose this. When they decide to form a legitimate organisation with a legitimate concern, like maybe violence and discrimination against PEOPLE, I may give them another thought.

Speaking of which, I noticed that lillith mentioned the United States opposes this, but there is no mention in the article about Canada. What is their current position on this ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
thelilith wrote:Yes, women

thelilith wrote:

Yes, women are people too. I expect you agree with the Queer Avengers ‘Transphobic feminism is so 20th century...women's liberation must mean the right to refuse imposed gender roles, to fight for diverse gender expression.'

 

Queer Avengers ? ?

Transphobic Feminism ? ?

What is that ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13094
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Conservatives are in power.

Conservatives are in power. They've little interest in expanding human rights or science. But we may have already signed it anyway, before they came into power. I don't know.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Conservatives

Vastet wrote:
Conservatives are in power. They've little interest in expanding human rights or science. But we may have already signed it anyway, before they came into power. I don't know.

I see.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13094
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Idle curiosity turned up

Idle curiosity turned up this:
Canada signed the CEDAW treaty on July 17, 1980 and ratified it on December 10, 1981.

http://dawn.thot.net/cedaw3.html

Explains why I didn't know. I was playing with my Lego and didn't care. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Idle curiosity

Vastet wrote:
Idle curiosity turned up this: Canada signed the CEDAW treaty on July 17, 1980 and ratified it on December 10, 1981. http://dawn.thot.net/cedaw3.html Explains why I didn't know. I was playing with my Lego and didn't care. :P

I was doing the same thing in 1980 Smiling

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"Cut out the

Vastet wrote:
"Cut out the abuse Vastet. Seriously, I am laying down a boundary. Don't put words into my mouth. They are your words not mine." Blow me, feminazi scum. You put words in my mouth, twisting my comment. Turn around is fair play. FYI, I don't give a rats ass if you get Peg and 50 other people over on your computer to agree with you, I'll tear them all a new asshole.

I come from Canada and I think lilith is from UK!!!  Anyone who is a name-caller at your age isn't ever likely to be mature enough to have a debate.

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


thelilith
thelilith's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2012-07-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"Cut out the

Vastet wrote:
"Cut out the abuse Vastet. Seriously, I am laying down a boundary. Don't put words into my mouth. They are your words not mine." Blow me, feminazi scum. You put words in my mouth, twisting my comment. Turn around is fair play. FYI, I don't give a rats ass if you get Peg and 50 other people over on your computer to agree with you, I'll tear them all a new asshole.

 

I'm a 57 year old grandmother 'feminazi scum' - my grandchildren would think that really funny.

Real change will come when it is brought about, not by your ego, but by reality.
Tony de Mello


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Queer

harleysportster wrote:

Queer Avengers ? ?

Transphobic Feminism ? ?

What is that ?

Trans-phobic Feminism is a subset of Feminism (and most often a subset of "Radical Feminism" ) that is, as the name suggests, hostile to the Trans* Community.  In Particular to Male to Female Trans* people, who are often considered 'invaders' while Female to Male Trans* are considered Disappointments or "Traitors".  They are generally people who have taken the "Womyn born of Womyn" ideal to heart.  At best they can be distrustful of Trans* Women, but at worst they'll be actively hostile, sometimes going so far as to out Trans*Women publicly, or incite violence against them.

The Rhetoric from Trans*Phobic Feminists can get pretty vicious.  Some of the more vocal members can be seen claiming that Trans*Women are just Men trying to exploit modern surgery to corner and rape "Real" Women or 'Invade' Women's Spaces.  Ironically, a lot of their rhetoric is very similar to the phrases used to traditionally marginalize Women, and they tend to have a certain "Stay in the Kitchen"-ness, except somehow backwards and upside-down at the same time.

In the LGBTQA Community they are sometimes referred to as RadFems or, more aggressively, as Radscum.  There used to be a good tumblr called "Throwing Shade at Radscum" that contained a good bit of examples of their behavior both on and off-line, but it has since gone under.

The Queer Avengers are 'just' a Queer Activism Group as far as I can tell, based in Wellington.

 

@ Vastet; I'm pretty sure his comment about you supporting the Queer Avengers was just a question, and not him trying to put words in your mouth.  So your reaction was kind of a bit excessively hostile.

Also it's really not that big of a deal to admit that Women are highly marginalized and discriminated against today, and it isn't Hostile to Men to demand that this stop.  Men being paid more than women just because they're men isn't a 'Right' that men should have, and attempting to address this and other similar issues from a woman-centric viewpoint isn't sexist, it's just accepting of the actual situation and attempting to resolve it.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius

Sinphanius wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

Queer Avengers ? ?

Transphobic Feminism ? ?

What is that ?

Trans-phobic Feminism is a subset of Feminism (and most often a subset of "Radical Feminism" ) that is, as the name suggests, hostile to the Trans* Community.  In Particular to Male to Female Trans* people, who are often considered 'invaders' while Female to Male Trans* are considered Disappointments or "Traitors".  They are generally people who have taken the "Womyn born of Womyn" ideal to heart.  At best they can be distrustful of Trans* Women, but at worst they'll be actively hostile, sometimes going so far as to out Trans*Women publicly, or incite violence against them.

The Rhetoric from Trans*Phobic Feminists can get pretty vicious.  Some of the more vocal members can be seen claiming that Trans*Women are just Men trying to exploit modern surgery to corner and rape "Real" Women or 'Invade' Women's Spaces.  Ironically, a lot of their rhetoric is very similar to the phrases used to traditionally marginalize Women, and they tend to have a certain "Stay in the Kitchen"-ness, except somehow backwards and upside-down at the same time.

In the LGBTQA Community they are sometimes referred to as RadFems or, more aggressively, as Radscum.  There used to be a good tumblr called "Throwing Shade at Radscum" that contained a good bit of examples of their behavior both on and off-line, but it has since gone under.

The Queer Avengers are 'just' a Queer Activism Group as far as I can tell, based in Wellington.

 

 

I encounter new terms everyday or so it seems. I had never even heard of this before this thread.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Peggotty wrote:I come from

Peggotty wrote:

I come from Canada and I think lilith is from UK!!! 

Am I missing something here about where location plays a role in this ?

I know that I asked if Canada participated in this treaty, but I seem to be missing where location outside of the US plays a role.

Perhaps it is because I am from New Jersey.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
thelilith wrote:Vastet

thelilith wrote:

Vastet wrote:
"Cut out the abuse Vastet. Seriously, I am laying down a boundary. Don't put words into my mouth. They are your words not mine." Blow me, feminazi scum. You put words in my mouth, twisting my comment. Turn around is fair play. FYI, I don't give a rats ass if you get Peg and 50 other people over on your computer to agree with you, I'll tear them all a new asshole.

 

I'm a 57 year old grandmother 'feminazi scum' - my grandchildren would think that really funny.

 

Hey - thelilith we could call ourselves The Feminazi Scum Grannies - although I won't be telling you my age!

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13094
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Peggotty wrote:Vastet

Peggotty wrote:

Vastet wrote:
"Cut out the abuse Vastet. Seriously, I am laying down a boundary. Don't put words into my mouth. They are your words not mine." Blow me, feminazi scum. You put words in my mouth, twisting my comment. Turn around is fair play. FYI, I don't give a rats ass if you get Peg and 50 other people over on your computer to agree with you, I'll tear them all a new asshole.

I come from Canada and I think lilith is from UK!!!  Anyone who is a name-caller at your age isn't ever likely to be mature enough to have a debate.

Blah blah blah. You're calling me names right now. You're a whiney hypocrite bitch. Go fuck yourself.

"I'm a 57 year old grandmother 'feminazi scum' - my grandchildren would think that really funny."

You too.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello,

I'm going to have to agree with the creepy looking guy. Though his agnostic inconsistencies should be noted.

Feminists are all communists. The ones that are not are simply inconsistent feminists that don't know what they are doing.

Thus the feminists communists are traiters to American values and should be shot via capital punishment and/or investigated by the FBI.

Rights come from God alone. The framers understood this and this is truly an American understanding. Woman are weaker then men and are more emotional, thus needing a man to lead them.

The priimary role of a woman is to help their husband as his assistant, and take care of the children while the husband runs the home.

This valentines day, perhaps you can mail a penis to a neighborly feminist to make them feel more whole.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Am I the only one

 

Am I the only one wondering why anyone wastes their time with treaties and worry about whether or not the US ratifies it? A treaty is simply a promise and legally in the US it does not carry authority if Congress decides not to follow the treaty. For example, the US regularly breaks the Geneva Convention and the treaties we have with the Native American tribes are very loosely followed. 

Whether you support the idea behind a treaty or not it seems absurd to get terribly upset with whether or not it is ratified. It is an unbinding promise made by people who are known liars that someone in their office in the future will abide by the terms of the treaty- something they have no way of knowing or enforcing. Passing a treaty isn't going to do shit except make a bunch of people feel like they are doing something and let politicians spew their propaganda about how much they care while not doing a thing to solve the actual problem. Yet another reason why the UN is a clusterfuck waste of money and time and a corrupt cesspool of thugs. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 http://www.un.org/womenwatc

 http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm

The actual text of the treaty under discussion is here. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Am I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Am I the only one wondering why anyone wastes their time with treaties and worry about whether or not the US ratifies it? A treaty is simply a promise and legally in the US it does not carry authority if Congress decides not to follow the treaty. For example, the US regularly breaks the Geneva Convention and the treaties we have with the Native American tribes are very loosely followed. 

Whether you support the idea behind a treaty or not it seems absurd to get terribly upset with whether or not it is ratified. It is an unbinding promise made by people who are known liars that someone in their office in the future will abide by the terms of the treaty- something they have no way of knowing or enforcing. Passing a treaty isn't going to do shit except make a bunch of people feel like they are doing something and let politicians spew their propaganda about how much they care while not doing a thing to solve the actual problem. Yet another reason why the UN is a clusterfuck waste of money and time and a corrupt cesspool of thugs. 

Thanks for pointing out that information out Beyond. It is kind of like certain local ordinance here. The city/county may PASS them, but they never enforce them or do shit about them unless they want to.

As much as I am known to hate my local government, this is mostly a good thing Smiling

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13094
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:
~snip~

And you most of all.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


thelilith
thelilith's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2012-07-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Peggotty

Vastet wrote:
Peggotty wrote:

Vastet wrote:
"Cut out the abuse Vastet. Seriously, I am laying down a boundary. Don't put words into my mouth. They are your words not mine." Blow me, feminazi scum. You put words in my mouth, twisting my comment. Turn around is fair play. FYI, I don't give a rats ass if you get Peg and 50 other people over on your computer to agree with you, I'll tear them all a new asshole.

I come from Canada and I think lilith is from UK!!!  Anyone who is a name-caller at your age isn't ever likely to be mature enough to have a debate.

Blah blah blah. You're calling me names right now. You're a whiney hypocrite bitch. Go fuck yourself. "I'm a 57 year old grandmother 'feminazi scum' - my grandchildren would think that really funny." You too.

Hi Peggotty - Are you a grandmother?  Have you read 'Crones Don't Whine' by Jean Bolen?  Might as well reclaim that word too.

Real change will come when it is brought about, not by your ego, but by reality.
Tony de Mello


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
thelilith wrote:Hi Peggotty

thelilith wrote:

Hi Peggotty - Are you a grandmother?  Have you read 'Crones Don't Whine' by Jean Bolen?  Might as well reclaim that word too.

No, I'm not as old as you (but then no-one could be ha! ha!) I never wanted kids, in a not very antinatalist kind of way, too stressful.

Yes, the old Jungian cantadora Jean Bolen, haven't read the one you mention although in 1066 I did read her two books 'Gods and Goddesses in every Man and Woman', back then I empathised with Hestia and my old man was Hephaestus - we haven't changed much.

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Passing

Beyond Saving wrote:
Passing a treaty isn’t going to do shit except make a bunch of people feel like they are doing something…while not doing a thing to solve the actual problem.

 

 

Yes, the US does like to do what it likes, under Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution it requires that treaties can only be made with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate. And so it has entered into many international agreements which are treaties on the international plane, but not treaties under US law.

But those who champion treaties have hit upon an essential truth, in any walk of life confidence is key, being able to argue your point, to hold your own is beyond a mere life skill and it’s the indisputable fuel for everything you want to do. Confidence comes from education and awareness, which means we do still need the type of resources, funding, culture and the type of infrastructure that results in treaties and the debate they provoke about the issues raised.

 

 

 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: I'm

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 

I'm going to have to agree with the creepy looking guy. Though his agnostic inconsistencies should be noted.

Feminists are all communists. The ones that are not are simply inconsistent feminists that don't know what they are doing.

Thus the feminists communists are traiters to American values and should be shot via capital punishment and/or investigated by the FBI.

Rights come from God alone. The framers understood this and this is truly an American understanding. Woman are weaker then men and are more emotional, thus needing a man to lead them.

The priimary role of a woman is to help their husband as his assistant, and take care of the children while the husband runs the home.

This valentines day, perhaps you can mail a penis to a neighborly feminist to make them feel more whole.

Perhaps the 'creepy looking guy' could mail you a brain so you can feel more whole.

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13094
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
No. He'd just break it.

No. He'd just break it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


thelilith
thelilith's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2012-07-13
User is offlineOffline
Peggotty wrote:thelilith

Peggotty wrote:

thelilith wrote:

Hi Peggotty - Are you a grandmother?  Have you read 'Crones Don't Whine' by Jean Bolen?  Might as well reclaim that word too.

No, I'm not as old as you (but then no-one could be ha! ha!) I never wanted kids, in a not very antinatalist kind of way, too stressful.

Yes, the old Jungian cantadora Jean Bolen, haven't read the one you mention although in 1066 I did read her two books 'Gods and Goddesses in every Man and Woman', back then I empathised with Hestia and my old man was Hephaestus - we haven't changed much.

Yes, the other Jungian cantadora is Clarissa Pinkola Estes who wrote 'Women who run with the wolves', i bet you've read that?  I'm wondering what brought you into the atheist camp?

Real change will come when it is brought about, not by your ego, but by reality.
Tony de Mello


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Yep, plenty of good fairy

Yep, plenty of good fairy tales in that book just like the Bible in fact.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Love or "Hate" Jean .. his entertainment value is off the chart

Love or "Hate" Jean  .. his entertainment value is off the chart

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

I'm going to have to agree with the creepy looking guy. Though his agnostic inconsistencies should be noted.

Feminists are all communists. The ones that are not are simply inconsistent feminists that don't know what they are doing.

Thus the feminists communists are traiters to American values and should be shot via capital punishment and/or investigated by the FBI.

Rights come from God alone. The framers understood this and this is truly an American understanding. Woman are weaker then men and are more emotional, thus needing a man to lead them.

The priimary role of a woman is to help their husband as his assistant, and take care of the children while the husband runs the home.

This valentines day, perhaps you can mail a penis to a neighborly feminist to make them feel more whole.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 (Big Smile)  With the comment above .. I had to contain my roaring laughter for sake of decorum, I may have hurt something trying to hold it in (55555)




 




  Moving on (as in moving on from Jeano's fun-time remarks)  . . .

 

 

  I know I should have just hyperlinked this to a URL, for the reader-to directly follow, but  I had to  cut-en-paste  it directly instead . . .

 

(Elad Nehorai)

 

   ''I'm a ridiculous, emotional, over-sentimental sap.  I guess that's why I told my wife I loved her on our second date.

I had tried really hard up to that point to hold it back, honestly.  I wanted to tell her on the first date, but I knew that would probably be weird.

I still remember her reaction.  She kind of gave me this half-shy, half-amused smile.  Then she nodded and looked off into the sky.

I wasn't heartbroken by the response.  I think part of me recognized that she was much smarter and more modest than me.

But as time has gone on, I also realized that she knew something that I didn't.

Like most Hasidic Jews (we both became religious later in life), our dating period lasted a very short time.  After two months of dating, we were engaged.  Three months after that, we were married.

And that whole time I was swooning.  This fire was burning in me, a fire that burned just like that second date: I was in love.

But then we got married, and everything changed.

Marriage, quicker than I was ready for, did this thing: It started sucking away that emotion.

I tried so hard to keep that fire going, to keep that emotion alight, but it got harder and harder.

I mean, how you can feel that burning love when you're sitting at the table discussing how to use the last $20 in your bank account?

How can you feel it when you get into an argument?

How can you feel it when you think it makes perfect sense to put your socks on the floor after you're done with them, and she has this crazy idea that they need to go in the laundry basket?

There was no way I could keep that dating fire burning as practicality invaded our lives.

And at first, it drove me nuts.  That emotion meant love!  That excitement was how I knew I cared for her!  But suddenly, life was this grind.  Even when I was with her.  Especially when I was with her.

And even worse, it seemed that the harder I tried to be sentimental and lovey-dovey, the less it was reciprocated.

But it wasn't that she wasn't giving me love, it just seemed to come at different times.

Like, when I offered to do the dishes.  Or make dinner after she had a hard day.  Or, once we had a daughter, when I shared the responsibility of watching over her.

I don't think I noticed this consciously for a while.  It just kept happening.

But I think it had an effect on me.  Because as our marriage progressed, I found myself offering to help out around the house more and more.

And after each time, there would be this look she would give me.  This look of absolute love.  One that was soft and so beautiful.

It took me longer than I care to admit to understand what was happening.

But eventually it became clear.  Through giving, through doing things for my wife, the emotion that I had been so desperately seeking naturally came about.  It wasn't something I could force, just something that would come about as a result of my giving.

In other words, it was in the practicality that I found the love I was looking for.

And what was even more interesting was that once I realized this on a conscious level, and started trying to find more opportunities to give, the more we both, almost intuitively, became lovey-dovey.

And now, as I'm a bit older and a bit more experienced with this relationship, I've finally come to realize something. Something I haven't wanted to admit for a long time, but is undeniable.

I didn't love my wife on that second date.

I didn't love her when we got engaged.

I didn't even love her when we got married.

Because love isn't an emotion.  That fire I felt, it was simply that: emotional fire.  From the excitement of dating a woman I felt like I could marry.  But it wasn't love.

No, love isn't an emotion or even a noun.  It's a verb.  Better defined as giving.  As putting someone else's needs above your own.

Why wasn't I getting reciprocal lovey-doveyness when we were first married?  Because it wasn't for her.  It was for me.  An emotion I had in my chest.

And even when I let it out of my chest, it wasn't love.

Being sappy isn't love.  Telling someone you love them doesn't mean that you do.

And that's why my wife just gave me that half-smile.  She knew, even if I didn't, what love really is.

And now that I've tried to change the way I look at love, the more I become shocked at the messages of love I had gotten when I was younger.

From Disney movies, to my favorite shows like The Office, to practically every pop song released, love is constantly sold as an emotion we have before we're married.  An emotion that, once had, somehow magically stays within a marriage forever.

I can't imagine a bigger lie.  And I'm saddened to think about how much those messages bounced around in my head for so long.  And how much I'm sure those messages are bouncing around in other people's heads as well.

I think that might be a big part of the reason the divorce rate is so high in this country.  Imagine a whole nation of people constantly chasing the emotions . . ''


 

   Dana's observation is, although I understand what this Jewish man is getting at, I cannot help but feel very sorry for him in a way. Love is very complicated stuff. And I think only part of what he is trying to convey is true. It is not that simple, and if I was to be honest I think he is sadly trying to make the best of it. You can develop love for a person over time, even romantic attraction. Mutual respect is a important key. I dont have the time to go on and on. I am reminded, I had to cut off many budding relationships in my life, if I felt I was heading in the wrong direction, when I knew 'if' I were to firmly persist, it might lead to this sort of outcome.



 



  ATTN  To:: 0ff-site . . .

  The briefest of reminders in your Pink and shell-like ear(s)

  Off-site

 

 

 

   Btw,  Grow up  for Heaven's sake, yeah, I am not forever sending messages .. (knock it off!!)!!  The board has a life of it's own.  Meaning ? How about it's time some people .. fulfill the shared parts of this in some other fashion then ?