A couple of questions and statements

Started by Liquid Sunshine, Oct 14, 2003, 10:57 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

DavidByron

Quote
Because we oppose feminism does that automatically make us "masculinists"? Sounds homoerotic to me. To me masculinism is simply the same as feminism.


You got ahead of me Dan!
To use the cake analogy again, if Sunshine joined a club especially for people who think chocolate is good, but cheescake is bad, but then joined another club with precisely the opposite views .... it wouldn't make her unbiased, it would make her a schizophreniac!!

However as you say it's a defence mechanism.  Sunshine has often mentioned she is a feminist since she arrived.  She has never once claimed to be a masculist too.  It's inconceivable she would have not mentioned her "dual loyalty" if that was really how she identified herself.

Besides, masculists are NOT the opposite of feminists any more than the KKK are the opposite of the NAACP.  Masculists do NOT oppress women, but only seek equality, albeit it I agree with you that their approach is subject to abuse.[/quote]
size=9]I am the victim of unregulated sarcasm[/size]

D

Quote from: "DavidByron"
[
You got ahead of me Dan!


Didn't mean to steal your thunder.  You outshine me ten fold however, certainly in this area.

Quote

To use the cake analogy again, if Sunshine joined a club especially for people who think chocolate is good, but cheescake is bad, but then joined another club with precisely the opposite views .... it wouldn't make her unbiased, it would make her a schizophreniac!!


However chocolate cake and cheese cake do not have a symbiotic relationship that can not be seperated from.  It is not like the two cakes are reliant on eachother for survival of the individual and of the species.


Quote

However as you say it's a defence mechanism.  Sunshine has often mentioned she is a feminist since she arrived.  She has never once claimed to be a masculist too.  It's inconceivable she would have not mentioned her "dual loyalty" if that was really how she identified herself.

Mostly I don't blame these women, most of them read feminism at face value.  In most respects you or I and most on this board know more about feminism than most "feminists".


Quote

Besides, masculists are NOT the opposite of feminists any more than the KKK are the opposite of the NAACP.  Masculists do NOT oppress women, but only seek equality, albeit it I agree with you that their approach is subject to abuse.


I dissagree, but agree with your version that in their approach is key to maintaining civility.

I dissagree that masculinist will not fall into the same trap, I believe it will and I see signs of it everyday.  I also believe that for those men who take up masculinism help to perpetuate that said ideology.  Masculinism can not become a term or to have the same "cultish like" resemblance or loyalty in anyways.  It excludes the one in the long run, it's right there in the name.  Adapting it to our psyche could be fatal.  

We spoke about this before and you told me that there seems to be no choice.  You might very well be right because who else is going to dig up the facts and deal with the government?

Personally, I feel that whole scheme of things is not men vs women, but collective control vs individual rights.   With the way feminists operate it is their intention that it not only be women in positions of politics, but women who are contorting policies in a certain direction.  Otherwise.......they hate them.  Erin Pizzey is always a prime example.  A woman who tried to find a solution to domestic voilence shut down because of ideology, not inaccuracy.

neoteny

Quote from: "Dan Lynch"
[...]

Personally, I feel that whole scheme of things is not men vs women, but collective control vs individual rights.   With the way feminists operate it is their intention that it not only be women in positions of politics, but women who are contorting policies in a certain direction.  Otherwise.......they hate them.  Erin Pizzey is always a prime example.  A woman who tried to find a solution to domestic voilence shut down because of ideology, not inaccuracy.


Very good point; besides it is some women who should determine policies according to (some) feminists. There's enormous amount of bitchin' on the MsBoard about 'hierarchies', but what they really mean is that they should be on the top of the pile.
The spreading of information about the [quantum] system through the [classical] environment is ultimately responsible for the emergence of "objective reality." 

Wojciech Hubert Zurek: Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical

DavidByron

But collectivism is good.  For example there is the biblical approach:

(scroll down to half way to skip the comments that are UK specific)
http://www.jubilee-centre.org/cambridge_papers/papers/Render%20unto%20Caesar.pdf

Quote
The economic model embedded in biblical law allowed goods to be
traded freely, but placed tight controls over markets for key factors
of production, land and capital. Land, the primary means of
production, was allocated on an equitable basis among families
when Israel arrived in Canaan. The freehold sale of agricultural
land was prohibited, restoration of lands at the Jubilee was required,
and interest-bearing loans by which financial power could be accumulated
were banned. In this way, the architecture of the economic
system - ownership structures, design of property rights, boundaries
of contract law - included built-in resistance to extreme poverty or
wealth. So after-the-event fiscal redistribution implemented by a
substantial state apparatus was largely absent. In principle, each
family had material resources to enable them to earn their own living
and, if circumstances dictated, an asset which could be realised for
cash without being permanently forfeited. These landholding
arrangements were intended to undergird the central importance of
the extended family or 'household' within Israel's social structure.


Here's a good summary of collectivsm vs individualism:

Quote
Individuals are not in the biblical view autonomous agents who are,
or should be, self-sufficient. The individual is located in a community
characterised by interdependence in which the family has a
unique and important role. So, the idea of freedom needs to recognise
the complementary role of obligation. All this undergirds a
concern for social inclusion but does not logically entail collective
action through government, funded by taxation, where alternative
methods of expressing our inter-relatedness exist.


As i mentioned elsewhere collectivism is better as an attitude towards this board too.
size=9]I am the victim of unregulated sarcasm[/size]

URnotmeRU

In keeping things current, BUMP. :roll:
nd the time will come when you'll see we're all one and life flows on, within you and without you. - George Harrison

Anniee36

Quote from: "Beste"
Quote from: "Anniee36"
Beste.........................................hat?   You..........play ..................... D.....Evil b....h.. and p.....................................ened..........................................ng on?   Please.   http://www.Linkdoesntwork.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1322&start=0  ..................................ass.   (F...............................................t.)


:sm12:


Dr. Evil, saying someone is crazy in response to (an altered) post is a personal attack.   I want a warning issued.
on't walk ahead of me, I may not follow.   Don't walk behind me, I may not lead.   Don't walk beside me either.  Stay the hell away from me!

Beste

Quote from: "Anniee36"
Beste do you read this board or what?   You gonna play that coy Dr. Evil bullshit and pretend you don't know what happened and what has been going on?   Please.   http://www.standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1322&start=0  There's a brief recap for your ass.   (First post has links to some of it.)



I replied with


Quote from: "Beste"
Quote from: "Anniee36"
Beste.........................................hat?   You..........play ..................... D.....Evil b....h.. and p.....................................ened..........................................ng on?   Please.   http://www.Linkdoesntwork.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1322&start=0  ..................................ass.   (F...............................................t.)


:sm12:


Its not an attack on you

Anniee36

Yes it most certainly IS a direct personal attack.  On me.   That evil thought it was funny is of no consequence.   You call people crazy (after altering their posts to make them something ridiculous) then yes, that's an attack.

Don't even start that shit.
on't walk ahead of me, I may not follow.   Don't walk behind me, I may not lead.   Don't walk beside me either.  Stay the hell away from me!

D

I don't really understand any of that Byron.  But the collective of "feminism" seems to reward the state more so than the women, though women do get crumbs.

The state has always had a vested interest in belittling individual rights, my belief is that if "masculinists" are not careful they will really just add to that delema.  Making things look more like 1984 than 2004.

DavidByron

Despite wandering off-topic with those last couple of posts, I'd like Sunshine to reply.
size=9]I am the victim of unregulated sarcasm[/size]

Liquid Sunshine

Quote
Quote
(DavidByron)
I would if the question had been "why do you pick feminism over masculinism?"



Alrighty then, why do you pick feminism over masculism?


I will be perfectly honest.  I had to think about this long and hard DavidByron.  My first response was that I don't.  But then I really wanted to dig a little deeper to see if perhaps I do have some subconscious leanings in that direction.  And in some things I do.  Some things.  But then as a whole, I feel very confident in saying that my overall goal in issues is to see that fairness rules the day.

There is more to this that I will address farther down in this post.

Quote
However as you say it's a defence mechanism. Sunshine has often mentioned she is a feminist since she arrived. She has never once claimed to be a masculist too. It's inconceivable she would have not mentioned her "dual loyalty" if that was really how she identified herself.  


Is it really?  The first topic I posted on ripped feminism from one end to the other.   Not masculinism or any variation thereof.  Since that time I have been on trial for my perspective and viewpoints.  Challenges have even been made that have stated that I am not a feminist.  Feminism is villified on this board.  

Even when I have come out in favor of men's rights or given support thereof it has been shown to me that I am damned if I do and damned if I don't.  There is no "right" way for me to really say anything.  I will have criticism coming at me no matter what I say or do.

Anyway....back to my beliefs and the trial.  I have further "testimony" ;) to give.

Why do I not call myself an egalitarian?  Well I do.  In fact, I would say that that is my over riding principle in my approach to things.  But I do think that feminism and masculinism are necessary things.  Although men and women share many similarities, there are inherent differences between the two sexes.  While egalitarianism is a fine principle and of the utmost importance, I don't realistically think that we can expect it to represent gender specific issues in a manner that will deal fairly with the gender the issue is relevant to.

In short, I don't think it is fair to ignore that men and women do have differences.  Just as I don't think it is fair to ignore our similarities.  Perhaps my view is idealistic.  But frankly, without ideals where would we be?

Anniee36

FWIW you're not on trial at all, at least not by me or anyone who doesn't wear rose colored glasses.   Verdict's in, jury's gone home, court's been cleared.   For days.   Janitor swept up already and the lights are out.   Judge isn't even in chambers anymore; she went home and is having a drink.   At this point it's just eating popcorn, watching and laughing :)
on't walk ahead of me, I may not follow.   Don't walk behind me, I may not lead.   Don't walk beside me either.  Stay the hell away from me!

FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR

Lt. Uhura-

"I see this is a club of women haters and one fake feminist. Do you little boys ever grow tired of picking apart the big bad feminists?"

I see feminists as intensely bigoted abusers and a narcicistic totalitarian gang of fanatical thugs who falsely claim to speak irrefutable truth for all women. And dont you refer to me as a "little boy" like an arrogant smug jerk.


"Liquid Sunshine? Forget it sweetheart, a feminist you are not."

Thank God for that. Shes an egalitarian and has merely mistaken a hate movement for the real mccoy.
What good fortune for government that people do not think."
                         Adolph Hitler

"Where madness rules the absurd is not far away."

We must not make the mistake of thinking that all those who eat the bread of dictatorship are evil from the first; but they must necessarily become evil....The curse of a system of terror is that there is no turning back; neither in the large realm of policies nor the 'smaller' realm of everyday human relationships is it possible for men to retrace their steps."
- Dr. Hans Bernd Gisevius
(1904-1974)

Anniee36

Well, FEM; I wouldn't bet on that too hard.   Pretending to be a feminist is a bit different than mistakenly calling yourself one.   That she isn't is perfectly clear, granted.   What is still not agreed upon is whether it was a matter of an honest mistake or a willful deceit for a specific purpose.  I know where my vote is cast on that.
on't walk ahead of me, I may not follow.   Don't walk behind me, I may not lead.   Don't walk beside me either.  Stay the hell away from me!

URnotmeRU

Liquid is no more a bonified feminist than Ronald McDonald is Clarabell. :roll:
nd the time will come when you'll see we're all one and life flows on, within you and without you. - George Harrison

Go Up