May 31, 2012

I am expressing an opinion that you don't agree with.

By your logic, shouldn't you be hitting the alert button about now?

May 29, 2012

At least, here, you admit that it's "a feminist POV" and not "all Feminists".

I'd say that 90% of the self-described Feminists on DU have no problem with me, and vice-versa. In fact, I consider myself one, which is why I was posting in your group in the first place. There are wide areas of agreement, and despite your consistent and obvious attempts to revise history on my contributions to that group, everything I posted there was within the SOP. Everything.

Part of the problem, as I and many others have seen it, has been the demands by a small group to have total ownership of the word "Feminist", and to exclude or disrespect contrary views. Fine, again, your group, and we're all aware of the circumstances pertaining to its forming.

But, revising history. The warning you speak of had to do with one thread in which iverglas escalated a reasonable discussion into a full-blown meltdown, which was one of many incidences where several members -or is it voting members, or "real" members- of your group had just about had enough of her. In terms of having an escalated disagreement with iverglas, that probably puts me in with 99% of the rest of DU. It's worth noting- did I mention your attempts to revise history around this?- that the disagreement came from iverglas posting a long-winded authoritative post saying that stay at home parents were lazy, dropping out of the workforce, that babies in the old days just somehow took care of themselves, blah blah blah. To which I responded that I didn't think she could possibly have any idea what raising an actual child entails.

It's also worth noting that several "real" members of your group, from seabeyond to violet crumble, were in complete agreement with me.

That was what precipitated your "warning", as well as your ridiculous -revisionism, again- statement that somehow I was "judging a woman for her reproductive choices", which is sort of like saying that asking a movie critic who calls Citizen Kane a "piece of crap because the aliens don't even look real" if he actually saw the movie is "judging a man for not having a subscription to Turner Classic Movies".




Then, in a further piece of revisionism, you tried to assert that I had self-deleted posts, when I didn't. No wonder you're not willing to try to back up your claims with links, anymore.

If I had actually written something in your group that was contrary to the SOP, the ban would make sense. But I understand we disagree on some things, so obviously I'm not going to come into your space and argue with you over them. We do have areas of agreement, but it would seem that it's more important to you to maintain a tightly controlled echo chamber where the ever-present 'threat' from the rest of DU is kept at bay, than to welcome a diverse set of voices on areas of agreement as per your SOP.

Go figure.

May 25, 2012

Library Girl already IS the only one here.

I'm sorry, but it's time for us to face the bitter truth. We've been her all along.




All of us.

May 22, 2012

So what is the scientifc basis for statements like "disruptions in the flow of consciousness"

Tht might be fine for a zen koan, but its hardly a scientific concept.

One, where is the scientific evidence that consciousness has a "flow?

Two, what constitutes a "disruption" in that flow? Is the person still conscious? Are they anesthetized?

May 20, 2012

I'm asking for the objective difference between sexual attraction that is non objectifying

and sexual attraction that is.

Specifically, in that paper, the authors state that when objectified, women are treated as bodies. And reduced to parts, whatever that means, although it sounds awfully silence-of-the-lambs-ey.

So, if Objectifico-Man #1 is having sex with the victim of his objectification, he is "treating her as a body". But he's also treating her as an object, and bodies aren't supposed to be objects. But they are. But they're not. And he's thinking about parts of her body, I guess.

If Non-Objectifico-Man #2, the one with the more fulfilling relationship, apparently, is having sex with the partner in the more fulfilling relationship, he's thinking about.. what? I'm gonna go out on a limb, say she's a grad student in economic theory. Maybe as they're having sex, he's supposed to be thinking about her recent brilliant dissertation on the economic impacts to third world economies caused by supply chain disruptions tied to inflated commodity prices.

Something like that?

May 19, 2012

You really want to do this? Really?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11392087

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=2613


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=41896


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=42083

"we have had THREE women TOS'ed from our group over ONE hidden post"



http://www.democraticunderground.com/11391866#post19

And of course, le piece de resistance:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=1973

May 15, 2012

Come ON. Have you seen that statue?

It's got a helpless icon of sexualized, objectified, male gaze phallopressed femininity, sexualized curves and all, and on the ground is a laughing pac-MAN (MAN!!!! ) who is quite probably looking up her skirt at the sacred Dworkin of her victimized maidenhood. Or, the round laughing head may symbolize the fragmented, damaged moon goddess, still traumatized by the brutal cosmic sexual assault by the brutes at NASA and their space phallus.

Patriarchy, INDEED.

May 14, 2012

Oh, well, if one blogger somewhere says something, that must be the final authoritative word on it.

The breakdown of MILF is "Mother I'd Like To Fuck". Of course, the dreaded "fuck" is in there, but so is "I'd like to". So it is, essentially, an expression of wanting to have sex. With a woman. Presumably from a man.

Now, I am well enough versed in Dworkio-Mackinnonite dogma and such to understand why, in SOME circles, that is tantamount to an expression of advocating the worst oppression that has taken place, ever, anywhere, in this universe or any other. It's not the vagaries or crudity of the expression, it's that a man is expressing his desire to oppress a woman by putting his evil, oppressive, PIV-implement in her. Whether or not the "like to" implies that this would be an imaginary consensual act of mutual imaginary pleasure (as much as womyn are conditioned to believe that their oppression is "pleasurable&quot it doesn't matter, because it's implying an oppressive, evil act.

Doubtless we've all figured out that this expression originated with teenage boys, talking about their friends' moms. Which, undoubtedly, has happened a lot throughout history. I suppose one could pontificate endlessly on why it would be more appropriate for teenage boys to use an expression like MILTHSWCNPIVSCIWITWWNDBTPWMASIBGIOIO ("Mother I'd Like To Have Some Womyn-Centric Non PIV Sexual Contact With If The World Was Not Dominated By The Patriarchy Which Makes All Sexual Interaction Between Genders Impossible Or Inherently Oppressive&quot but realistically, MILF is probably more in tune with the vernacular used by teenage boys.

For the record, the mothers of my friends are all either dead or senior citizens, and while I'm sure they're lovely people, I'm not available anyway.

May 14, 2012

Warren DeMontague is not a man

Warren DeMontague is THE man.










And, he's a puppet, too! How's that for a soooper secret meta meaning! Decipher that one, %#%#^£€£¥¥%s!