This message was self-deleted by its author

[stevenleser]

266. Thanks for noticing. Too bad you aren't.

>>Third wave feminism embraces two additional concepts here that are very important to this discussion. First is that sex and sexuality is a positive and beautiful thing which each consenting adult has the right to decide for themselves how they intend to enjoy and also that second wave feminism has nothing to say about issues outside of the gender binary but third wavers do.

>Gee, and you're not agist at all. I was there. You weren't. You don't have a clue.

You were there? At the pageant? I thought you were against pageants? If that is the argument you are making, I've seen pageants on tv as have most people. I think we all have clues.

Agist? What phrase of mine are you intentionally misinterpreting to allow you to make that one up?


>>What if this woman, as is very likely, wanted to appeal to other women by participating in this pageant? Shouldnt she be allowed to do that?

>As Miss Manners used to say: why do you ask? Did someone say she SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED to do whatever the hell she wants to do? Let me help you. NO. No one said any such thing.

Here is where you become intellectually dishonest. No, scratch that, here is where you put your intellectual dishonesty into high gear. No where did I assert you and other second wavers were trying to enact a law to disallow this person participating in a pageant. It's a rhetorical expression, but you already knew that. You are trying to make bullshit points here that mean absolutely nothing. So, let me rephrase the question in a way that doesnt allow you to take the discussion off onto a meaningless tangent. Can a gay woman participate in a pageant like this without people like you giving her a hard time. Shouldn't she be allowed to do that? There, was that really necessary?

>Here's one for you: What if someone thinks that what someone else is doing is damaging to the cause of a vulnerable, disadvantaged group? Shouldn't they be allowed to say that?

As I noted above, are you implying that someone has told you that you should/will not be allowed to say that? No, of course not. So you understand that point here, but you pretended you were ignorant of it when I suggested above "Shouldnt she be allowed to do that".

So, here is my response to your posit. If you can convince me that it is sexist when gay men ogle scantily clad men, gay women ogle scantily clad women and both heterosexual variations, then I and other third wavers won't call bullshit on you. M-kay?

>>Why can't the LGBT community be sexy and superficial on occasion if they want to be?

> Who said they can't? Why is your question loaded with the false premise that someone has said they can't? Is this civil discourse?

And now, you have flip-flopped back to asserting this kind of question is something other than what it is.

> Let me help you with that one too.

Oh boy, I cant wait to see this.

> NO.

And your false premise is asked and answered by you. Congrats.

>> A second waver wouldnt even consider that in their comments as it would never occur to them.

>This "second waver" thinks that if the only way you can make your own case is by making false allegations about other people, you have a really weak case.

Actually, my allegations seem to be right on. You have as much as proved them.

>>What second wavers in this discussion dont seem to get is that in arguing this is a bad thing, they are denying this gay woman her right to be superficial if she wants to be and reinforcing patriarchy and straight priviledge.

>What you seem quite determined not to get, in your efforts to shove your own agenda, is that what was objected to in this thread was the behaviour of some of the men who posted comments in this thread. Interestingly, you've chosen to pretend otherwise, and to say nothing about that. If that's "third wave feminism", give me patriarchy. At least it doesn't pretend.

So in order to make your point, you bring in things completely unrelated to what I was discussing as if I can only discuss the parts of this OP and discussion thread that you feel I should discuss. Thanks but no thanks.

>>If you want to know why I think third wave feminism is the right way to go about promoting equal rights for all women, this discussion thread is a really good example.

>If you want to know why genuine feminists think your version of "third wave feminism" is a load of self-absorbed anti-intellectual malarky, read your post.

If you want to know why third wave feminism was so sorely needed, you have only reinforced the point.