How did you become a Feminist?

[Guest]

Sweet, I loved this last post. I'm a sexist too, but careful in how I show or act on it.

I know it's a typo but I'm going to start spelling it Frued now, fits him better .

Perdita

 

[sweetnpetite]

I feel the same way when I don't have a job. the only thing that I object to is when men (ie males) talk about feeling that they should have a job as though it effects *only* men.

Plenty of women feel the same, even when the not working is a choice. (Such as myself choosing to be a stay at home mom) Although many people *assume* that this is ok for me, and many people *assume* this means I'm the type of woman who wants to *be taken care of*- for myself, I still have the same, self doubt feelings that a man (male) would have in the same situation. (I don't know if I am communicating my exact meaning, but I'm trying)

When I *was* working, you have no idea how many guys I heard approaching either me or my co-workers with lines like "If I was your man, you wouldn't have to work- you deserve to be taken care of." God! they actually thought that was some kind of compliment. Get away from me!!!!!

We haven't come as far as we think we have when that attitude is utterly common.

I love the sound of your relationship svenkaflicka. who wears the pants should be an 'udderly moo' point (it's like a cows oppinion- it doesn't matter) A woman working and doing her thing should in no way mean that she is imasculationg her man (male). If a man (male) can only be a man (male) if his woman is a helpless female, then he wasn't much of a man (male) to begin with.

Then we have me. I'm rather strong. I know martial arts. I've been living alone for so long that I've learned how to take care of myself. And I feel utterly bad when I don't have a job to go to, partly because I want to do my part and bring home money to support myself (and later on my family), and partly because I need the intellectual stimulation of working.

Who wears the pants in our relationship?

Both of us. We have a pair each, and we co-operate when it comes to decisions and stuff. Not having a traditional male/female roleplaying gives us the opportunity to instead have a Hubby/Svenska relationship, where we play ourselves, and not some old-fashioned stereotype of what a man should be or what a woman should be.

It works for us.







Except when it comes to the toiletseat issue.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Sweet, I loved this last post. I'm a sexist too, but careful in how I show or act on it.

I know it's a typo but I'm going to start spelling it Frued now, fits him better .

Perdita

He had some good ideas. They were just incomplete- having come from a very limited male perspective

 

[Guest]

He had some good ideas. They were just incomplete- having come from a very limited male perspective

I agree, I love his writing style too. He was just too dependent on his cigar . P.

 

[sweetnpetite]

PS.

Often when I speak about god, I avoid use of a pronoun. (saying he implies that I think of god as male, saying she invites unnecessary controversy.

When I post about god, you will very often see me writing: god/dess/es- which means obviously that god could be a he a she or a them and my coment applies to whatever of these you recognize as divinity.

I also use a lot of s/he and stuff like that -I don't often see others do it though, in fact very rarely. it also works with child/ren. So personaly, once again I appreciate the language working out the way it does

 

[sweetnpetite]

I agree, I love his writing style too. He was just too dependent on his cigar . P.

LOL, you can say that again!

(did I ever tell you about my homophobic manager who thought it was gay to eat carrot sticks dipped in ranch sause?- or that gum w/ the juice in it for that matter!)

ps. I started reading snippetsville because of your link I'm on issue 6.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Yeah. Thanks for saying that. I totally agree.

We tend to forget that this country was certainly *not* founded by 'moderates.' No way no how! They were as radical as they come! And today, we view so many of there ideas old fashioned and hopelessly out of date.

Conservatives tend to like the word 'moderate' and that's fine for them. But they are good at arguing that while radicalism may have been called for in the past, it is not called for now. Perhaps they don't expect for the rest of us to remember that at the time, the conservatives were against *those* radicals too.

Not that moderation is *never* good. It's just a bit overrated at times, while radical is unfairly derided on the basis that it is too differnt from the status quo.

Moderates don't like to make waves. Radicals are wavemakers. Sometimes you need waves, sometimes you need stillness.

Moderation shouldn't be a goal, though. Positions or beliefs look moderate in one time period (Well, of course our dark brothers can't govern themselves, but we owe it to a higher being to be humane to them-- this was moderate only a century ago, despite the facts. Haiti was the second oldest independent country in the Americas and the third republic, in the Enlightenment sense, the modern republic, the third in the world, after France and the US. And had been run by black people, ex-slaves at that, right from the first. Haiti chose the republican option with deliberation, for itself. In 1805. Two centuries ago, and you can still count truly successful slave rebellions on your fingers, taking all of history into account. And I count Pitcairn Island. Slave owning America didn't want to talk about it, let alone celebrate it. That sentiment about the incapacity or the dark brother was moderate mainstream thought in 1905.) will look pretty extreme in another time period.

The forces which mutate a moderate position over time are called radical every time. But the ideas mustn't be judged by how radical or how moderate they are, which is relative, and fleeting, and unimportant to their discussion.

Separation of church and state was a radical notion, but three hundred years of religious wars and the grue of hundreds of slaughtered ancestors in those wars called out for a way to remove the heat from that debate.

Any challenge to the idea, whether you see the idea as moderate or not, is a call for more massacre of Huguenots, more inquisitions, more hundred-year wars against infidels and heretics. The idea needed to be looked at on its merits, not compared to whatever prevailing idiocy was in place.

"Moderation in all things," the portion of Stoic thought we remember now, is not particularly brilliant or profound, especially in a political context. Wiser if you are talking about how much wine to drink.

 

[sweetnpetite]

More on gods and goddesses

I remember reading in a feminst book that there was a quote from the tv show cybil that went something like- "Maiden, Mother Crone is fine as far as it goes, but it leaves something out. There needs to be a Chearleader Goddess aspect." The chearleader of course is the 'sexual' goddess aspect. (No implications intended towards past or present chearleaders)

I think this idea is a product of our mistaken present day idea that 'maiden' means virginal (or pre-sexual) and that 'mother' means non-sexual as well. I think that originaly, mother (before we imposed our sex-hating beliefs over it) *was* the sexual aspect. (LIke duh! Think about it, how did she become a mother?) But in our current wordview, we like to think of mothers as asexual.

I tend to get offended by the term MILF, because it seems to imply that there is something inherently *unfuckable* about a woman once she becomes a mother, and that the MILF is of course the exception. I find it a little less agreigious confused: ) when it refers to a mother who is basicly old enough to be *your* mother. (ie, teenage boys w/ a crush on their friends moms) I find it kind of insulting to think that having kids has made me less attractive. (and also I have never found it to be true. I have never hid the fact that I have kids, and I've yet to meet a guy that had a problem with it.)

 

[sweetnpetite]

Opposing View
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." Pat Robertson, 1992 [...]

Damn straight!

come give me a kiss 'dita

 

[sweetnpetite]

bump

hey you!!

 

[cantdog]

re: bump

I hope you mean me; I am made very bashful by your av *blushes*

I do love radicals. I got suspended from high school for a week once by wearing an armband with a square root sign on it to school... the symbol is called a "radical" and it was 1968.

The sixties, you hadda be there. Even my mom said "You bet your bippy..."

Conservatives say too much cow dung about how "maybe we needed a union once, but that day is gone; maybe we needed an abolitionist movement once, or a womens' lib movement..." or whatever it is. They'll just do anything you can't stop 'em from doing, and if you stop 'em, you're being too radical.

Child labor, slavery, women as chattel... they hated losing all of it.

 

[Guest]

come give me a kiss 'dita

Here, Sweet . Sorry I missed you.

Perdita

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: re: bump

I'll never get over the fact that I missed the sixties. (born in '75)

The sixties, you hadda be there. Even my mom said "You bet your bippy..."

Conservatives say too much cow dung about how "maybe we needed a union once, but that day is gone; maybe we needed an abolitionist movement once, or a womens' lib movement..." or whatever it is. They'll just do anything you can't stop 'em from doing, and if you stop 'em, you're being too radical.

Child labor, slavery, women as chattel... they hated losing all of it.

Yeah... sucks to be them

 

[cantdog]

You bet your bippy it sucks to be them.

I was a little too young myself for the sixties. I turned fifteen in September of 1968, and the hippies were a thing of the past in 1967, though there were a lot of wannabes for a while.

I was with 'em in spirit, but I had to mow the lawn and do my paper route and stuff while they were chuggin Owsleys and having all that fun.

*sigh*

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Re: More on gods and goddesses

I tend to get offended by the term MILF, because it seems to imply that there is something inherently *unfuckable* about a woman once she becomes a mother, and that the MILF is of course the exception. I find it a little less agreigious confused: ) when it refers to a mother who is basicly old enough to be *your* mother. (ie, teenage boys w/ a crush on their friends moms) I find it kind of insulting to think that having kids has made me less attractive. (and also I have never found it to be true. I have never hid the fact that I have kids, and I've yet to meet a guy that had a problem with it.)

My friend M has guys drooling after her when she walks through town with her baby in a buggy, or when she goes out dancing with her big, pregnant belly.
One guy even suggested she'd let her husband babysit the kid while she went out on a date with him!

 

[raphy]

Raph, don't presume about me. I addressed my 'aggrieved' query to you only cos you asked the original question. It was rhetorical and analogical basically.

I wasn't presuming about you (although you appear to think that I am, most of the time) - If I recall correctly, my original words were "I suspect". I'm making no assumptions about how you think or feel. If my suspicions are wrong, then they're wrong. No big deal. But they're suspicions, they're mine, and I'm certainly not trying to put them forward as fact. I haven't done that in any part of this thread. In fact, I'm getting sick and tired of getting jumped on in what has essentially become another 'man-bashing' and 'women rule!' thread, which appears to be the norm here, as of late.

That said, I ain't about to leave.

I don't take p.c. into the equation at all, that's for politicians.

Unfortunately, dear, it isn't. The entire argument on patriarchial language is about political correctness. It's about worrying whether what you say is going to offend a body of people.

We can't say 'black' - We have to say 'african-american' (or 'people of color' for those living outside of the US)
We can't say 'slow' - We have to say 'learning disadvantaged'
etc etc etc

And now we can't say 'woman' because it's derivative of man?

I call a spade a spade and to hell with tiptoe-ing around political correct people. Fuck, you can call me whatever you like, as long as it's not late for dinner.

 

[raphy]

Re: More on gods and goddesses

I tend to get offended by the term MILF, because it seems to imply that there is something inherently *unfuckable* about a woman once she becomes a mother, and that the MILF is of course the exception.

SnP, with respect, you tend to get offended about a lot of things.

Obviously, I'm a man, so my word has virtually no weight in this discussion, but like a lot of men, I'm obstinate, stubborn and obdurate and so I'm not likely to be ducking out any time soon. Besides, I can't let this thread turn into a testosterone-free zone.

So, my take on MILFs - Would it shock you or surprise you at all, to learn that nope, SnP, I don't agree with you on MILF.

A mom I'd like to fuck.

As opposed to a mom I wouldn't like to fuck.

To me it has no difference than saying something like:

A female computer programmer that I'd like to fuck, compared with a female computer programmer that I wouldn't like to fuck.

Only a mom can be a MILF, but not all moms are fuckable, in the same way that not all women are fuckable to all men - Like any other situation of attraction, it depends on the man's (Or woman, if she's inclined that way) tastes.

 

[oggbashan]

Manhole

I can't find the exact quote but I think Germaine Greer once said:

"I don't want to change the word 'manhole' until women have expressed a desire to climb through one and spend their day shovelling shit."

Og

 

[raphy]

Re: Why I love the word WOMAN

Being as how I am a totally sexist woman who *does* happen to think that women are the superior sex, I happen to LOVE the word women.

-- flag waving stuff snipped --

***I would like to add that I am sorry if I offended anyone, but these are my oppinions, and I own the fact that they are considered sexist. I have read some well meaning posters who claim not to be sexist (even to be feminist) and certain of there attitudes, to me are quite sexist. Growing up in a male dominant society, you come to accept certain things as so without even realizing it. So if I caused you to think, I am happy; but if I caused anyone to anger then I am sorry.

Love,
Sweet

Golf clap, darlin', golf clap.

You see, you *are* a sexist, and you admit it.

I'm most definitely not, and I happily admit that. I'm not a feminist and I'm not a chauvanist.

You go ahead and worry about your side coming out on top. I'll worry about both sides. It seems a lot fairer, to me.

 

[raphy]

I'm out all day now, so feel free to rant and rave and throw things at me while I'm gone.

 

[Black Tulip]

... But they're suspicions, they're mine, and I'm certainly not trying to put them forward as fact. I haven't done that in any part of this thread. In fact, I'm getting sick and tired of getting jumped on in what has essentially become another 'man-bashing' and 'women rule!' thread, which appears to be the norm here, as of late.

That said, I ain't about to leave.

Raphy,

I sure hope you don't count me in on the man-bashing crowd. Damn, I thought I made it clear I was glad we have some men in Lit who speak their mind about things like this.

Have a nice day.

 

[cantdog]

manhole

It's too late, Ogg, they're access chambers now.

Several versions of non-gender-specific Bibles are out.

Sweet is preaching to the choir for me. I've been worshipping women since I came to puberty. It's probably inconvenient to have the weights on the chest (sensitive ones, at that!) and to wear those hideously uncomfortable arrangements of straps and whatnot, but they can do the big one, incubating children. I never regretted being male, but I certainly always knew which gender had the edge. Read Joe Campbell on the primacy of the Goddess and the relative newness of the male god culture. I'm not the first .

I majored in the history of English. We dumped a lot of noun cases pretty much all at once, didn't we? People write and even talk to avoid the kind of locutions we've been talking about, and you can call it PC if you like. A lot of people resent descriptive dictionaries and bemoan the loss of whom and the invention of unnecessary things like dilatated for dilated, and irregardless for regardless. I saw Beware the Dog go to Beware of the Dog in my lifetime, and that ain't pc. It's as if "open the can" suddenly became "open of the can" and the older direct object form disappeared utterly. Language changes can be swift and the analyses from cocktail-party feminists haven't been much above the level of folk etymology. I mean, womb-man and nonsense of that kind. No offense, but the real lineage of the word is more complex, as has been pointed out right here in this thread. Language changes can be insanely slow and some things persist for millenia.

The point is how life is lived. Any woman can tell you her experience is not an experience of equality of the genders. This is exactly like "we might have needed a union once" when people say we've come a long way, and pat themselves on the back for their achievement. How moderate they are, how good and how pc. But long way or short way, equality is not here, and equality would be preferable. Women in a good sized workplace or a medium-sized town never spend a day without being patronized. All you need are relative numbers of human contacts with strangers to get that.

Racism just as much, and there isn't even a lot of pc when it comes to bashing other people's religions.

But you need to grow out of group-centered morality systems like nationalism or religionism, if I may be allowed to coin one.

It is thoroughly moral FOR A REAL NATIONALIST to brutally slaughter, and yes, torture, the enemy. That's what enemies are. Any system based in Us and Them moves you into a morality of that sort. That's why it's wrong. Asians are also people, just as members of any gender or race are also people, any religion, short or tall, eastern or western, straight or not.

If your head is still in the childish us/them space, you never get this.

But I love you all just the same, them too. I can't help forgiving them. But I would like to see some people at least try the feeling on of adopting the rest of us into their little narrow tribe.

Sorry, ranting again. But there is so much nationalistic and messianic misery going on right now, it makes me frantic to stop the children from fighting.

 

[oggbashan]

Re: manhole

It's too late, Ogg, they're access chambers now.

Not here they aren't. They are still manholes.

Og

 

[cantdog]

manholes again

I talked with a student who'd been in London on some sort of study-abroad thing for a number of months.

She came out of American university, and she was a not-particularly-virulent feminist, but it struck her very odd over there that her talk fell on deaf ears so much of the time.

"E's my man, enny? E've a right to bash me abaht." That's what one London woman told her at a bus stop.

I love the manhole thing. Do you still also use beware with a direct object?

cantdog

 

[KarenAM]

Re: manhole

The point is how life is lived. Any woman can tell you her experience is not an experience of equality of the genders. This is exactly like "we might have needed a union once" when people say we've come a long way, and pat themselves on the back for their achievement. How moderate they are, how good and how pc. But long way or short way, equality is not here, and equality would be preferable. Women in a good sized workplace or a medium-sized town never spend a day without being patronized. All you need are relative numbers of human contacts with strangers to get that.

Nicely put, cantdog. You touch on something important, which radicals of all stripes sometimes forget. That is, that the path towards equality might not be straight. What worked in the 1960s and 1970s may not work today.

In the 1960s, sexism was institutionalized in the American legal code. There were states where a woman needed a male signature to get a loan, for example. This kind of injustice was approached with a radical approach designed to change the law, and it was largely successful. (Not entirely, of course; Janet Jackson can't bare her boob in public, while Michael Jackson can.)

My point is that in the 1960s and 1970s, sexism was ingrained in our culture in a way that really did require angry, noisy, annoying bra-burning lunatics to get everyone's attention and get things changed. But today, such anger has achived nothing save to marginalize feminism. It's alienated women as well as men. Sexism is still ingrained in our culture but I think we need to be smarter in how we deal with it. We need to build trust among people, women and men both, if we're going to get anywhere. We need to see that men have problems too, and show them that they suffer from injustices done to women, that it is in everyone's interest to build a society of opportunity, justice and freedom.

Radicals can work for this; to a lot of feminists I would be considered a radical for daring to suggest that men aren't the enemy. But Moderates are important too. The biggest danger to gender-equity is when we stop talking to each other and replace it with talking at each other.