In a recent Sky News report Kay Burley asked Pamela Wright, the partner of Steve Wright (recently convicted of murdering five women in Ipswich)
“Do you think if you’d had a better sex life, he wouldn’t have done this?”
Implying what? That women, as the mythical gatekeepers of sex are somehow responsible for men using prostituted women and turning them into mass murderers. Because of course, if it is not the mother to blame for his behaviour then we sure as hell have to find a woman in there somewhere to take responsibility.
Liveblogger Debi Linton has started an internet petition to get Kay Burley sacked.
Sky are hardly going to sack such a good little handmaiden of teh patriarchy. They’re lovin’ it. Teh P. love it when the handmaidens do their bidding.
So, in Ms Burley’s mind; lack of sex = ok to go out on a killing spree? Sheesh, is sex perceived to be so violent now that murder is the only logical conclusion? You people are watching far too much violent porn.
From the other blog, a link to the Sky interview:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1306608,00.html
Of course, in the Sky report, they couldn’t help themselves by mentioning “their naked bodies” and “prostitutes”. More pukeworthy was the first comment that I read from ‘Jude Fellows from Chelsea’.
Wright’s behaviour even now is one of a guilty man. The public talk of suicide is to elicit sympathy for HIMSELF (no talk of appeal or anything).
Note how Ms Wright said that there was NO change in his behaviour during the murders. That’s because he was always like that, and he just decided to act on those thoughts of misogyny and violence. This really points to how acceptable the level of misogyny and violence is prevalent in this society — it goes unnoticed. That’s why he doesn’t stand out from the crowd. He is like ‘normal men’. In fact, I know many who are even more open about their misogyny.
Thanks for the link stormy.
Aghh that first comment!
Yeah, decoded it says “sex is for the young and hawt folks”.
I guess Jude hopes he “dies before he gets old”.
He says.
Of course, then he goes on to say how it’s no excuse to murder.
With your permission Sparks (cluttering up your blog with male supremacist dribble):
The first half sentence starts off with a little promise, and goes downhill from there. A bit like a loss-leader really.
the high age gap between couples, particularly if the older one happens to be the female
No double standard evident there eh Jude? Perfectly ‘natural’ for decrepit old menz to run around with 20yo or younger wimmin?
In Steve’s case…
Nice first name basis with a killer. Identify much?
…his partner is 60years old, 11 years older than him.
Give Jude a Gold Star for the mathematical effort. “Steve” was apparently too stoopid to realise!
Can anyone show me a 60 year old pensioner that still wants sex?
Yeah there are lots, but none of your damn business (nor mine) what they want or don’t want to do, or how often. In this case Jude is referring to Pam Wright, who was NOT a pensioner, but worked nights at a call centre (it had been reported often enough, pay attention Jude).
She will be medically dry.
Oh, Dr Jude?! “medically dry” what sort of crap terminology is that? I hereby revoke your (fake) medical licence Jude. There are actually commercial lubricants on the market Jude.
Even my wife at 42 years old do not want sex anymore!
Jude, meet mirror. Take a look at your attitude towards wimmin, sex, ageism (probably other ism’s in there as well). I am older than that, would still fancy sex except I remain celibate because there are far too many Jude-doods in this world.
Hence, I think there needs to be some sort of govt regulations into age gaps in marriages, in other to prevent such incidences occurring where the younger partner, with a higher sex drive will have to resolve to either prostitutes or affairs for sex.
And they accuse radfems of policing people’s bedrooms? So what recourse is there for the older partner who may want (more) sex than the younger one? And the older one is female? Don’t laugh Jude, it happens more than you think, but I shouldn’t go around shattering your delusion of studly-doods, should I? I love Jude’s assumption that menz *need* a female body to wank in. Most menz have hands if orgasmic release is the *need*. There is no *need* that says one *has to* copulate with another.
That said, lack of sex should not make a man a killer, so if he has indeed killed all those 5 women, keep him in and throw away the keys!!!
IF???? He was just convicted FFS. Do keep up Jude.
Cross-posted with my mega-reply to “Jude the dood”.
So having ‘had to resort to prostitutes’ because of a higher sex drive (Ok I’m not going to deconstruct that bit, let’s take it as read), why then does the younger partner have to go on to murder them? Bit of a non sequitur there IMNSHO.
I like your NSHOs.
I can’t let that bit pass, because I think it is at the heart of the matter.
“Hence, I think there needs to be some sort of govt regulations into age gaps in marriages, in other to prevent such incidences occurring where the younger partner, with a higher sex drive will have to resolve to either prostitutes or affairs for sex.”
The vaunted “sex drive” is very likely to prompt one to masturbate.
There simply is no “sex drive” that creates the desperate need to use another person to satisfy it.
It doesn’t exist.
The desire to use another person to satisfy ones sexual urges is based on the dominance/submission paradigm inculcated in people from the day they are born.
To call it a sex drive lays a patina of nature over an explicitly taught behavior that has it’s ultimate expression in rape and murder.
Yes thebewilderness it is fundamental to the matter and unfortunately this is the logical outcome of men’s sense of entitlement to certain privileges such as a perceived‘right’ to sexual activity with another person. Entitlement isn’t a biological drive.
Well said bewilderness.
Add to that the way that most Johns actually regard prostituted wimmin, it reveals all.
My old mum has just started to draw her pension and my step father who is 59 seem to keep the bedrooms wall a-rattlin’ and he has never shown any inclination to murder women. So much for that theory.
And ‘medically dry’ – Gah! What level of ignorance are we functioning at here? It’s that old ‘it’s nature telling us something so it must be so’. Men twisting a dodgy ‘factoid’ to fit their idea of how we women function.
To suggest that it could be the women’s fault is obviously ridiculous.
I’m confused. Do you believe Kay is in favor of the “patriacrhy”, or simply manipulated by it?
stormy: There is no *need* that says one *has to* copulate with another.
Ah, by that logic, abortion should be made totally illegal, because we don’t have any biological need to have real sex. SO if we feel the need to have sex outside of a loving family setting, we should just masturbate instead, to prevent unwanted children from being born. That said, rape shouldn’t exist, because men and women who rape people could just masturbate instead, and that should fully satisfy them.
Jude:Even my wife at 42 years old do not want sex anymore!
Well, perhaps he should consider talking to his wife frankly and openly about his desires for more sex. Hopefully, if he is honest and sincere, and she truly loves him, she will want to satisfy him in this way.
To contrast, if you love your wife, you should consider making a better attempt to keep your sex drive in check to avoid infidelity, and to compromise for your wife and the good of your marriage. Your penis is not your brain. Don’t let it think for you. There is nothing more pitiful than a person who’s main drive is sexual. Any life form on the planet can reproduce. Any rat, snake, or dog. It takes no skill or intelligence what so ever. As humans, our main drive should be the betterment of those around us, not the betterment of ourselves. All evil is traced to selfishness. All good is traced to selflessness.
Johnny:
“I’m confused”
Evidently – try feminism 101?
“abortion should be made totally illegal, because we don’t have any biological need to have real sex”
Ah yes, because there is no such thing as sex for pleasure, no such thing as rape, no such thing as contraceptive failure, no such thing as sex without a reproductive purpose…
Oh, wait –
“if he is honest and sincere, and she truly loves him, she will want to satisfy him in this way.”
There *is* such a thing as sex for no reproductive purpose.
But maybe it is only if the man is the one who wants sex? Or maybe it is only if the woman is past childbearing age so that accidental pregnancy isn’t an issue? Are 42-yr-olds past childbearing issue?…
“I’m confused.”
Oh, yeah, I remember now – you are, aren’t you?
“There is nothing more pitiful than a person who’s main drive is sexual.”
Because? What you should have said is that “There is nothing more pitiful than a person whose sense of entitlement is so warped that they feel they have a right to wank inside other people’s bodies, and a right to demand such service of any woman ‘if she truly loves him’.” Except in our rape culture, it’s not pitiful – it’s scary and dangerous. For us women that is – for you, not so much.
“As humans, our main drive should be the betterment of those around us, not the betterment of ourselves.”
Not true. For one thing, who has to be driven by drives? For another, I am deeply suspicious of those who want to “better” other people without “bettering” themselves. In any case, even if you mean something like “work for the happiness of”, I don’t think you can work for the happiness of other people without being happy in ourselves. Isn’t the most important thing simply to stop harming those around us? I say “simply” – but when you feel entitled to, say, wank inside another person every time you feel horny, maybe it isn’t so simple.
“All evil is traced to selfishness. All good is traced to selflessness.”
Misleading, see above. I don’t think selflessness in fact exists and I don’t especially think that is something to aspire to. Relishing / not hating our own selves is the first step to relishing / not hating other people’s selves.
(“I’m confused”
Evidently – try feminism 101?)
You did not answer my question.
Do you believe Kay is in favor of the “patriarchy”, or simply manipulated by it?
(Ah yes, because there is no such thing as sex for pleasure)
That has nothing to do with my point, Maia. Stormy said, There is no *need* that says one *has to* copulate with another. Now, humans have no “need” for pleasure. Needs are associated only with physical survival. Pleasure is associated with everything above physical survival.
Now, if what stormy claims it true, that there is no biological”need” for copulation, this would logically conclude that all sex outside the desire for procreation is selfish by nature.
But if stormy is wrong, and there is in fact a biological need to copulate, then sex for pleasure is a driven necessity, meaning it can exist in selfless, pleasureful form.
Which of you is correct?
(Ah yes, because there is no such thing as sex for pleasure, no such thing as rape no such thing as contraceptive failure, no such thing as sex without a reproductive purpose…)
That has nothing to do with what I am talking about. You are deliberately confusing the issue. I am not talking about abortion rights. I am talking about whether or not there is a biological need to copulation, as stormy claims there is not.
(But maybe it is only if the man is the one who wants sex? Or maybe it is only if the woman is past childbearing age so that accidental pregnancy isn’t an issue? Are 42-yr-olds past childbearing issue?…)
You completely ignored the fact that I cited a responsible resolution for both genders in order to further express your bias against men.
What I said has nothing to do with demand, or entitlement. It has everything to do with two loving adults who are trying to make a marriage work the best they can. Both parties must be understanding and sympathetic to each other, and willing to reach a compromise.
(“I’m confused.”
Oh, yeah, I remember now – you are, aren’t you?)
I will clearly reiterate what I was confused about so there is no mistake on your part again:
Do you believe Kay is in favor of the “patriarchy”, or simply manipulated by it?
(“There is nothing more pitiful than a person who’s main drive is sexual.”
Because?)
I explained that in detail. Sexual reproduction is the most basic of all instincts, and to follow the lowest common denominator is to live a life of mediocrity and obscurity. Pitiful.
(What you should have said is that “There is nothing more pitiful than a person whose sense of entitlement is so warped that they feel they have a right to wank inside other people’s bodies)
That has nothing to do with my sentiment regarding the futility of centering one’s life around reproduction. It is a separate conversation all together. I do agree with that statement, but it has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
(and a right to demand such service of any woman ‘if she truly loves him’.”)
That has nothing to do with what I said. I made no reference to demands, nor rights. You came up with that all on your own. What I was referring to was honesty, sincerity, and open lines of communication between both the man, and the woman.
(Except in our rape culture,)
Rape culture? Are you suggesting that rape is a cultural phenomena?
(“As humans, our main drive should be the betterment of those around us, not the betterment of ourselves.”
Not true.)
By saying not true, you admittedly question whether or not it is better for humanity on a whole if the individual lives selfishly, or selflessly.
(For one thing, who has to be driven by drives?)
Your question shows lack of understanding of the concept of drives. Drives are one of two things: Biological, and personal. Biological drives cannot be escaped without compromise of personal survival. For instance, the drive to drink water. But personal drives are not required for a single person to survive. For example, the drive to succeed in business. However, a personal drive is what causes a human being to go above and beyond the meager existence of simply surviving. Personal drives can be selfish, or selfless. They can benefit people, or exploit them.
(For another, I am deeply suspicious of those who want to “better” other people without “bettering” themselves.)
I never indicated that a person shouldn’t seek to better themselves. You came up with that on your own.
What I said was, a person can live one of two ways. Selfishly, or selflessly. Living a selfless lifestyle has nothing to do with ignoring self growth. Quite the opposite.
(In any case, even if you mean something like “work for the happiness of”, I don’t think you can work for the happiness of other people without being happy in ourselves.)
This should be self evident. However, there are two sides to being “happy”. Some people can be happy regardless of the pain they see around them. Some people can only be happy if they are actively reducing that pain. The difference between selfish and selfless.
(Isn’t the most important thing simply to stop harming those around us?)
The “most important thing”? What, do you mean, the most important thing in life?
It is impossible to exist along side other life forms without causing any harm to them. The most important thing is to ensure we cause as little harm as possible. Since everybody has their own idea of what a perfect world would be, we can never truly obtain a perfect world. This means that instead of trying to obtain something which cannot exist, such as never harming anyone, we should strive to obtain something which was can obtain, such as endlessly seeking ways to do as little harm as possible.
(I say “simply” – but when you feel entitled to, say, wank inside another person every time you feel horny, maybe it isn’t so simple.)
Who are these imaginary people who feel sexual entitlement?
(I don’t think selflessness in fact exists)
Then you deny the logical existence of love it’s self. Love is the substance of selflessness. Any act of love can be traced to selflessness. Love is the willingness to live your life for somebody else, above your own. Love is the willingness to work to fulfill somebody elses desires beyond your own.
Now, PURE selflessness cannot exist. PURE love does not exist. Not in human form, because we are bound to a mortal existence, and no matter how selfless we strive to be, we cannot avoid succumbing to a selfish desire.
(and I don’t especially think that is something to aspire to.)
I don’t think you understand what I was talking about. You seem to think I mean we should completely ignore personal development, and simply live for the benefit of everybody but ourselves. This is ludicrous.
(Relishing / not hating our own selves is the first step to relishing / not hating other people’s selves.)
There is nothing which prevents a person from learning to love themselves by performing a selfless act. A hardened criminal who feels no self worth can still feel some bit of admiration for himself when he helps build a house for a homeless man.
In fact, many people do not start out with a reason to love themselves. Simply by loving others, they can feel better about themselves, and learn to love themselves.
I think we would all agree that doing something nice for somebody makes us feel good about ourselves.
Personally Johnny I do not know if Kay is ‘in favour of’ or is ‘manipulated’ by the patriarchy (look no scare quotes as it really does exist) the reasons why some women capitulate to the P is a huge and varied subject of it’s own that most of us do not have the time or inclination to teach you. Hence the mention of Feminism 101. However, I will give you a few key words here. Stockholm syndrome, adaptive preferences and good old survival. You see, when you live within an oppressive system and are a member of the ‘out-group’ I.e. women, then very often it’s a matter of just doing what you have to do to *survive*
P.S. please refrain from “You did not answer my question.
Do you believe Kay is in favor of the “patriarchy”, or simply manipulated by it?”
This is a demand and you have no place to demand anything from the women on here.
There is a possibiltity that Kay is just suffering from a bad case of mpomwebf (media personalitis open mouthus without engaging brain firstus). But even in the case of this amazingly common complaint said MP is likely to repeat obvious cultural cliches. So I’d say she’s channelling the patriarchy if anything.
Gawd, he’s back.
I’m confused.
Glad you admit it.
Do you believe Kay is in favor of the “patriacrhy”, or simply manipulated by it?
It doesn’t matter what I believe actually. However, it is probably a bit of both.
Ah, by that logic, abortion …
See Maia, Bewilderness, Polly et al for the clues. You are just trolling by your sidestepping. Understand the fundamentals, and it makes perfect sense.
Well, perhaps he should consider talking to his wife frankly and openly about his desires for more sex. Hopefully, if he is honest and sincere, and she truly loves him, she will want to satisfy him in this way.
Good(ish) start. Talking/communicating is always A Good Thing in relationships. You also assume the patriarchical assumption that it is only the menz that have the almighty sex drives. Human sexual desire waxes and wanes, frequently due to external influences (like being over-worked, worried about losing job…) it is not ‘an absolute’ in either females or males.
But Johnny, oh Johnny. “she will want to satisfy him in this way”? Again re-read Maia and Bewilderness (and my comment too).
That comment is so loaded in entitlement and patriarchical conditioning.
No-one has the right to expect or demand sexual ’services’ from another. Let me put it simply for the XYs having trouble with the concept. If the XY ‘lost’ his sex drive, say due to being worried about work or whatever, and the XX was still up for it, how would the XY feel if he was OBLIGED to satisfy her ‘needs’ (which are actually wants/desires, not needs)? Resentful? Turned off? Like a piece of meat? Again I say, understand the fundamentals, and it makes perfect sense.
*pats Johnny on the head like a good little pet*
To sparklematrix: Thank you for your reply, and for not patronizing me. You make valid points.
And to stormy: if you are going to respond to a persons post, the polite thing to do would be to read all of it. I’d also appreciate it if you didn’t take a patronizing tone with me.
(No-one has the right to expect or demand sexual ’services’ from another.)
I never said they did. If you read my post that would be very clear.
(Let me put it simply for the XYs having trouble with the concept. If the XY ‘lost’ his sex drive, say due to being worried about work or whatever, and the XX was still up for it, how would the XY feel if he was OBLIGED to satisfy her ‘needs’ (which are actually wants/desires, not needs)? Resentful? Turned off? Like a piece of meat?)
Again, I fully addressed this in my post. The fact that you bring this up shows you only read part of it.
(Again I say, understand the fundamentals, and it makes perfect sense.)
I don’t imagine you will consider me as understanding the fundamentals until I directly agree with everything you say.
Do invest in a sense of humour Johnny.
You’re just all mopey because “aha! you’re a closet christian!” didn’t pan out.
Actually there is no such thing as a ‘biological need’ or biological drive for sex. Meaning of course the social construction that ‘real sex’ consists on penis in vagina with every other sexual act just ‘foreplay.’ If there was a biological need then homosexuality and lesbian sexuality would not exist. Yes, I know some homosexuals and lesbians engage in penetrative sex but many others do not. Sexuality in itself is a social construction and what is defined as ‘real sex’ changes according to differing dominant scripts. Currently the dominant heterosexual script is one wherein male heterosexuality is constructed as ‘the penis needing to be thrusting inside the vagina’ in order to achieve climax. Female heterosexuality is constructed as always ‘needing to have a penis thrusting inside in order to achieve climax and sexual pleasure. Add on the fact many heterosexual men believe their female partners should at the very least ‘be willing to sexually satisfy them by having their vaginas penetrated by the penis otherwise the man is not able to attain sexual release or sexual pleasure.’ This one-sided male belief takes no account of the female partner’s sexual desires, needs or even if she wants to engage in pentrative sex. Instead the presumption is a female sexual partner should always be ready to provide sexual servicing to the male. If the female partner refuses then of course the man is entitled to seek ’sexual release’ via buying a prostituted woman’s body. Such arguments are used to justify and excuse male sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of women. Don’t worry the human race will not suddenly die out because women are refusing to engage in penis in vagina sex. Because some women like and enjoy penetrative heterosex whereas others do not. Reality check – female sexuality is not a one size fits all. Some women like penetration others do not. This is what is meant by female sexual autonomy – the accepted recognition that a woman’s sexuality and body belongs to her alone – not to men.
Men you will not die because you do have a willing vagina to insert your penises. There is no biological drive which says penises must be thrusting in vaginas. If there were, male masturbation would be non-existent. Remember penetrative heterosex was not interpreted as ‘real sex’ until the 19th century. Non-penetrative heterosex was not perceived as ‘abnormal or dysfunctional.’ Which proves that sexuality is a social construction not a fixed biological drive or urge. Ancient Greek men did not routinely engage in heterosex but instead enacted their sexual pleasure on adolescent Greek born boys.
“I’d appreciate if you don’t take a patronising tone with me?” What was that thing in the bible about motes and beams again stormy? Can your friend the Big J maybe reprise it for us?
Oh and nb – watch those stray apostrophes Johnny. (being pedantic – not the sole preserve of MRAs).
oh noes! false dichotomy troll!
“Now, if what stormy claims it true, that there is no biological”need” for copulation, this would logically conclude that all sex outside the desire for procreation is selfish by nature.
But if stormy is wrong, and there is in fact a biological need to copulate, then sex for pleasure is a driven necessity, meaning it can exist in selfless, pleasureful form.
Which of you is correct?”
Johnny are you saying that EITHER I might be correct when I suggest that it is acceptable for two people to have sex for pleasure or other non-reproductive purposes OR that Stormy might be correct when she comments that there is no biological “need” for copulation BUT it is not possible for us both to be right?
Either (1) we are driven to sex by our biological needs, in which case we can do it “selflessly” and therefore it is OK, or (2) we are not driven to sex by our biological needs in which case any sex is inherently “selfish” (unless it is for the purpose of reproduction – which, mysteriously, is *not* selfish) and therefore we ought always to refrain from non-reproductive sex.
Because that is the dichotomy you are setting up and it leaves no room for the position that sex is something we can do, or not, because we *want* to (rather than because we *need* to) and that following our pleasures in this way – provided we are doing no harm and are acting in a mutual and consensual way – is a perfectly moral and acceptable way to behave. Whether or not you want to code it as “selfless” or “selfish”.
By the way, that whole selfish/selfless line of reasoning you’ve been enjoying yourself with – kind of dull. Basically, if it makes you feel good to do a charitable act or a loving act, then you can’t say it is “selfless” because the way it makes you feel about yourself is a key part of your motivation. End of.
Oh, and the other thing I thought was kind of cute? When you said “I am not talking about abortion rights.” and then I checked back at your original comment and I saw “Ah, by that logic, abortion should be made totally illegal, because we don’t have any biological need to have real sex.” and then I thought – oh wow – not just a false dichotomy troll but also a changing-the-goal-posts troll as well. Super!
What are you gonna come up with next, I wonder?
Do I even care?
Bit bored of you now, Johnny. You aren’t learning anything, and nor am I.
I am bored with him too Maia.
Don’t forget that when he first came onto Sparkle’s blog he declared he was a student of scriptures … but not a christian!
Now he’s a christian.
I call fibber too!
“Sexual reproduction is the most basic of all instincts…”
No, Johnny, it isn’t.
“Drives are one of two things: Biological, and personal. Biological drives cannot be escaped without compromise of personal survival. For instance, the drive to drink water. But personal drives are not required for a single person to survive. For example, the drive to succeed in business.”
Criminy, drive, desire, need, these are not synonyms. You are just being silly with this ‘drive to succeed in business’ codswollop.
“I never indicated that a person shouldn’t seek to better themselves. You came up with that on your own. ”
Right, Johnny. So when you said this:
“As humans, our main drive should be the betterment of those around us, not the betterment of ourselves.”
You actually meant something else entirely, and taking your words to mean what they say is just so unreasonable.
Did you even get that what we were discussing was the purported “drive” to use another persons body for sexual gratification? Than which does not exist.
Or as the Buddhists would say…
Sparks –
At the risk of taking our attention off the slug for a minute, would you mind expanding on that Buddhist reference for me? I haven’t heard it before. I goggled it, but nothing doing… and I feel like I’m left hanging.
He who puts gold on the face of Buddha WHAT?!
Thx
The Buddhist temples in Thailand have an alter featuring a Buddha statue, incense, flowers etc; it’s also where you offer gifts of food for the priests as they have a vow of poverty. As part of the ritual, you take a small piece of gold leif and place it onto the Buddha. The moral is that people who do deeds for their own gain – however covert (where it was suggested in the post – to make one feel good about oneself) will place the gold on to the face of Buddha so everyone can see just how superior and honourable they are. A more modest person will place the gold where it is not obvious. Sorry for being a bit cryptic.
Don’t worry Maia, he is possibly off looking up the meanings of the words: NEED and DESIRE.
Tricky little suckers.
Stormy: (Don’t forget that when he first came onto Sparkle’s blog he declared he was a student of scriptures … but not a christian!)
You are deliberately misconstruing facts. I never made the direct claim that I was not a Christian. You are reading in a falsehood to further your accusations that I am a liar, and your claims have no basis.
To Maia: Just as I suspected. Your definition of truth is subjective, not objective. How else could you reason that two opposing viewpoints could simultaneously be right.
to jennifer drew: Thank you for actually providing a logical argument. Your statements are clear, and are not misleading. You state fact, and expand upon it. It’s nice to see. Thus far, only you and Sparklematrix seem to converse this way.
to polly styrene: Well, I suppose two wrongs DO make a right, from your perspective. Do unto others as they do to you. That’s always a recipe for success.
And to everyone in General, so far, Jennifer has been the only one to actually address anything I was talking about. The rest of you simply twisted what what I said to fit your personal agenda, dodged all of my questions, insulted me, and further patronized me. If you cannot follow a straight line of logic, then refrain from pretending to. I can accept that.
And to Jennifer and Sparkle, thank you for at least treating me as a fellow human, and being willing to engage in adult, logical discussion without resorting to schoolyard insults. I’ll never understand why some people see discussion as a battle between who is right and who is wrong. But I guess if it makes you feel better about yourself, who am I to stop you?
And again, to sparklematrix, thank you for not simply censoring out what I say. That actually means a lot to me. A lot of places I go simply delete any posts I make if I disagree with something, regardless of how civil and reasonable I try to be. I understand that this is not a “men’s” site, and recognize my privilege for being allowed to have my voice heard here. Thank you for that.
J – I don’t know why I’m either bothering to reply but my mother always told me quite firmly that two wrongs don’t make a right. I was also taught a lot of bible stories and the one quoted (do not look for the mote in your neighbour’s eye and miss the beam in your own) was about the point that we shouldn’t go round pointing out minor flaws in others when we have major flaws ourselves.
Which is nothing to do with two wrongs making a right. It’s a completely different point.
Just one more snack for the troll and then I stop.
“To Maia: Just as I suspected. Your definition of truth is subjective, not objective. How else could you reason that two opposing viewpoints could simultaneously be right.”
Nope. I don’t reason that two opposing viewpoints can simultaneously be correct. I reason that the two viewpoints that you say are opposing are not in fact opposing – and in fact can easily be reconciled by anyone with half a brain. I think I was pretty clear on that, actually.
Funny thing – when a whole bunch of people seem to be misunderstanding you or twisting your words, or treating you as though you just stepped off an especially stinky compost heap – if there are a whole bunch of people ardently disagreeing you but not apparently making any sense – do you ever wonder, just sometimes “Is it really them, as I keep telling myself, that are the problem, or could it possibly be *something about me* that causes the problem, sets off this reaction, fails to understand?” Do ya?
Johnny – Polly’s “mote in your neighbour’s eye and miss the beam in your own” together with Maia pointing out the same is what imo you seem to be doing. There is a region in our psyche which is unknown by the person him/herself and this is sometimes called the ‘blind self’ and naturally is closely linked with self-awareness. This blind area could also be ignorance about oneself, or issues in which one is deluded. Therefore, as already suggested, maybe it is time to start looking inwards for answers in what you appear to experience as barriers put up by us – against you.
‘a man with such a high sex drive’ – hadn’t realised that was the problem – i thought it was that he was a serial abuser of his partners (or was that the other charming fellow banged up last week?) who progressed to murdering women.
the sex drive thing?…
just on a law dweeb issue i reckon the men who got convicted in such a short time probably got longer sentences than if cases had come up further apart.
i will not, however, be applying to mount an appeal for them.
You are deliberately misconstruing facts. I never made the direct claim that I was not a Christian. You are reading in a falsehood to further your accusations that I am a liar, and your claims have no basis.
Possibly you may be right for once Johnny-boy. But you sure did dance around it (and frankly, it’s late, can’t be bothered trawling over the many threads of our encounters to check it). For a heck of a long time though, you did speak of christians as if they were ‘other’ than yourself.
http://sparklematrix.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/lets-sterilise-teenaged-girls/#comments
Oh, and you’re only being nice about Sparkle and Jenn because (apart from just above) they hadn’t directly challenged you. Both are good mates of mine too….. *waves*. Oh noes, penny dropeth for our Johnny, not just a random gathering of ‘crazy wimminz’!
Johnny, you are way too caught up on ‘catching us out’ than any genuine learning curve. That is what puts you in the troll bin.
Maia has addressed you brilliantly throughout. I can’t be bothered. I took up radical feminism to be lazy. (Note to Johnny, see, it does no actual harm not to take one’s self too seriously.)
I can’t believe you ladies actually attempted debate with this Johnny fellow…it was obvious to me from the start that he had no interest in “learning” anything about feminism.
“To Maia: Just as I suspected. Your definition of truth is subjective, not objective. How else could you reason that two opposing viewpoints could simultaneously be right.”…
“I’ll never understand why some people see discussion as a battle between who is right and who is wrong. But I guess if it makes you feel better about yourself, who am I to stop you?”
Hahahaha! Wooo, this guy is so annoying and hypocritical he actually makes me chuckle.
Now why were “sex drive” and violence against women conflated again???…..
I took up radical feminism cos it’s fun Stormy, which is why I have only read selected bits of Johnny’s posts, life is far too short. And NB MRA’s what you suspect is true, as Stormy hints above. We have all got some secret evol conspiracy going on…….Mwah ha ha ha you poor fools etc….
I took up radical feminism cos I like hating on men.
*winks*
I like this evol side of you Polly.
Lots more mwah ha ha ha’s — keep ‘em coming!
Seriously though, radfeminism, great stuff for the lazy. ‘Cept for all that activism stuff. OK, well, the evolness is probably the upside.
“…If it is not the mother to blame for his behaviour then we sure as hell have to find a woman in there somewhere to take responsibility.”
Ain’t that the truth!?
In re: to Johnny’s comment at #30: Doncha’ just lurve how he rated those who responded to his comments? As if male approval, or the lack thereof, is what makes the woman.Or put more bluntly, as if any of us here give a shit.
‘A lot of places I go simply delete any posts I make’
goodness!
hmmmmmmmmmmmm…
Yoo Hoo CoolAunt.
Yoo hoo!
Yoo hoo too!
But I am glad Johnny told me the secret of success CoolAunt, cos otherwise how would I have ever known, as being an evol lesbian separatist I never encounter any menz normally.
hey Polly, *apparently* what I did was baaaad (as far as impressing our menz friendz).
On the bright side, I was consistently No.1 on his hit list.
Must be doing something right… now if only I could bottle it.
(Johnny – Polly’s “mote in your neighbour’s eye and miss the beam in your own” together with Maia pointing out the same is what imo you seem to be doing.)
Now, I have a question for you.
You would hold me to practicing this religious teaching, correct? And as I’m sure we all agree, if one doesn’t seek to practice ALL of the teachings of a religion, then one is simply inventing their own religion, and really just following them self.
So, you would have me hold that particular teaching in practice, and thus, hold true to all of the other teachings as well.
Then how am I to resolve the teaching that abortion is wrong? If I am to be held to the teaching of removing the plank from my own eye before removing the speck from my brothers, then should I NOT be held to all other teachings of my religion?
Would you therefore hold me to exercising my belief that abortion is wrong?
To polly styrene: Lesbians are no more evil than Christians are evil. In Romans it says, “For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”, meaning that all sin separates us from God, and we are all inherently evil.
One of my best friends is a big norweigan lesbian named Caroline, or “caro” as she goes by. I love her with all my heart, and we get along great. There is a stigma burned into Christians that we are to segregate ourselves from anyone who doesn’t believe what we believe. This is a fallacy, as Christ himself kept the company of everyone, such as hookers, thieves, and beggars. In fact, he tended to stay away from the hard hearted, pious religious leaders.
To Maia, who said: “I took up radical feminism cos I like hating on men.”
I understand you are partially joking. But it’s the part that isn’t which worries me.
Is hating men seeking to bridge the gap between the sexes and bring unity? No. And only unity between genders and races will work towards solving social problems. Hating a group of individuals because of a fact that they have no control over is called bigotry. If bigotry isn’t tolerated against women, then it shouldn’t be tolerated against men.
Is that logic incorrect?
(do you ever wonder, just sometimes “Is it really them, as I keep telling myself, that are the problem, or could it possibly be *something about me* that causes the problem, sets off this reaction, fails to understand?” Do ya?)
Of course. Introspection is essential to understanding self. Understanding self is essential to understanding others. Now, you seem to indicate that the “my problem” communicating to you lies entirely within myself. I am willing to accept that, should it prove to be true.
But it has been my general experience that if one is civil to others, one is treated in a civilized manner. I feel that you are not treating me civilly, but rather patronizing me. Therefore, if I have treated YOU in an uncivilized manner, please point out where I have done so, so I can avoid doing it again, and thus avoid this treatment from you.
If it is merely my presence here which irritates you, please just say so. I can take it. And it would go a lot towards explaining the way I have been received. After all, I wouldn’t expect any of you would receive a warm welcome on a chauvinist forum, so I should expect the same.
To sparkle matrix who said, “There is a region in our psyche which is unknown by the person him/herself and this is sometimes called the ‘blind self’ and naturally is closely linked with self-awareness. This blind area could also be ignorance about oneself, or issues in which one is deluded. Therefore, as already suggested, maybe it is time to start looking inwards for answers in what you appear to experience as barriers put up by us – against you.”
I am well aware of the fact that the barriers one encounters are often built by one’s self. Unintentionally though they may be. However, one cannot ignore the fact that relating is a two fold event, resulting in the convergence of two minds, barriers and all. This tells us that while I may very well be guilty of ignorance, and projecting the barriers myself, I cannot discount the fact that the person I am relating also has the very same effect at work within themselves.
However, I cannot work towards changing anyone other than myself. To attempt so is futile. And in retrospect, I suppose the fact that I expressed any opposing opinion here at all would be enough to form a barrier between us. Posting an opposing view point on an activist website is sure to create tension and misunderstanding between people. This I can see.
But how else am I to converse with people of different mindsets? How else am I to seek to bridge the gap between the sexes if I do not try to get people to understand my view points, and in turn seek to understand theirs?
Or does your school feminism not seek to bridge the gap?
Now, I PERSONALLY believe that any form of “radical” action has no interests in equality, but rather, exclusive privilege. Examine any movement in history which has been labeled as “radical”, and this will become evident. Now, I am not saying that “radical feminism” is seeking only to bring about exclusive privilege, but I know enough about the human heart to understand that this could very well be true for a lot of people who subscribe to it.
To Lara: Could you point out to me specifically where I am being hypocritical?
To CollAunt: If I was seeking to give or receive female approval, I certainly would not attempt such on a feminist forum. Nor would I expect you to attempt such on a chauvinist forum.
To stormy, who said: “Oh, and you’re only being nice about Sparkle and Jenn because (apart from just above) they hadn’t directly challenged you.”
I don’t believe that is true. Both of them posed very real challenges to my way of thinking. Jenn, explaining that my expressed concept of sexuality is not adequately developed, and sparklematrix, who sought to further explain points of challenge which other has instituted. They simply approached me in a non-antagonistic manner.
(Johnny, you are way too caught up on ‘catching us out’ than any genuine learning curve. That is what puts you in the troll bin.)
Hmmm. I suppose you are right. My effort was to point out a flaw in your logic, and then seek to properly connect the dots between the faulty line of thought. I don’t suppose anybody likes having imperfections shoved in their faces. I apologize for this.
Listen, I can’t claim to have all the answers anymore than you can. Nobody has all the answers. But other people have experiences and knowledge which which helps me better understand my own thoughts, and my efforts are to share what I know in order to help people better understand their own thoughts. But in retrospect, I went about it in an inappropriate manner. I can admit that.
(For a heck of a long time though, you did speak of christians as if they were ‘other’ than yourself.)
A personal fault developed from years of persecution. Christians are not well received. Anywhere. And more often than not, my opinions are thrown out the window the instant my beliefs are discovered. I grown tired and irritated with this. My opinions are as valid as the next person. Everybody has personal beliefs. Everybody has a “religion” of sorts, a set of teachings they follow and try to adhere to. And just because mine can be labeled and are patronized by popular culture doesn’t mean it is okay to do so. I am not any less (or more) human than somebody of opposing beliefs.
All I am asking is for people to respect my personal beliefs, as long as I respect theirs. To be treated as an equal, as long as I treat others as an equal. I don’t think that is unfair, do you?
Yoo Hoo CoolAunt.
Yoo hoo!
Yoo hoo too!
why yoo no yoo hoo mee hee? what i doo hoo???
Yoo Hoo, SimplyWondered!
Yoo Hoo, Stormy!
And an extra, just in case.,..
Yoo Hoo, SimplyWondered!
Johnny, I’ve got a low tolerance for bullshit and seemingly endless drivel puts me to sleep, So, I read the first couple of paragraphs of your comment no. 48 but then, due to the odor and drowsiness, I jumped down to the closing paragraph.
“All I am asking is for people to respect my personal beliefs, as long as I respect theirs. To be treated as an equal, as long as I treat others as an equal. I don’t think that is unfair, do you?”
Oh, now this is interesting, not unique but creative. It’s a threat wrapped in a promise that if we behave ourselves, do as we’re told and then ask for it nicely, we’ll finally be rewarded with equal treatment, something that should be our birthright anyway. The unspoken threat is that if we don’t behave, do as we;re told and ask nicely, our punishment will be more of the same as we’ve gotten all along.
Well, Johnny, women have behaved, done as we’re told and asked nicely for centuries and centuries, about as long as your beliefs have been the respected norm and about as long as men have been treated as greater than rather than equal. Guess what the outcome was. Nothing. More of the same ol’ same ol’. The promises were empty and the reward never came. We grew tired of waiting a long time ago and so now we’re no longer asking for equal treatment. We’re demanding it. In words of our own choosing. And we won’t stop demanding and fighting for equal treatment until we get it.
Now, take that back to your site and share it. That should keep you and your brethren occupied for the rest of the day.
Was about to say something but can’t be arsed, so I just second Cool Aunt.
I was thinking along similar lines CoolAunt.
Polly has already ‘bagged shotgun’, so I’ll third it.
(Johnny, I’ve got a low tolerance for bullshit and seemingly endless drivel puts me to sleep, So, I read the first couple of paragraphs of your comment no. 48 but then, due to the odor and drowsiness, I jumped down to the closing paragraph.)
Endless drivel? Endless? It’s two pages of text. Come on now…
I’m sorry if your attention span doesn’t run longer than a 30 second commercial. It took me ten minutes to write, so it should only take two to read.
Don’t expect to have any clue as to what a person is talking about if you don’t even read what they say. I take the time to read everybody else’s comment, as well as the blogs here, even though I don’t usually agree with what is said. That’s because I realize one must take in information from all possible sides if one is to ever have the hopes of achieving truth.
(Oh, now this is interesting, not unique but creative. It’s a threat wrapped in a promise that if we behave ourselves, do as we’re told and then ask for it nicely, we’ll finally be rewarded with equal treatment, something that should be our birthright anyway.)
Oh get over yourself. My comment was a request, not a demand. What terrible punishment do you envision me laying upon you? That I should remove the graces of my presence here? I doubt anyone would argue against that.
You are reading your own bias into what I said. It has no basis in the reality of the thoughts behind why I said it. Further more, you completely dodged the question.
(The unspoken threat is that if we don’t behave, do as we;re told and ask nicely, our punishment will be more of the same as we’ve gotten all along.)
Behave? As if I see every body as some rowdy child, and lord myself above them? Is it such an unreasonable request to ask my beliefs be respected in turn for respecting others? This isn’t some petty, infantile threat.
I respect the opinions of other regardless of how I am treated. It’s the entire premise behind “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It doesn’t mean, “Do unto others as long as they do so unto you”. I have no “threat” of imposing myself if I am not immediately handed this “respect” you seem to think I feel entitled to. It was a question within a question. Is it unreasonable to ask that my beliefs be respected if I do the same. That’s it. No secret agenda, no hidden meaning, no threats, no promises of tit for tat.
(Well, Johnny, women have behaved, done as we’re told and asked nicely for centuries and centuries, about as long as your beliefs have been the respected norm)
Sorry, which beliefs again were the respected norm?
(and about as long as men have been treated as greater than rather than equal. )
Do you believe women are greater than men or equal to men?
(Guess what the outcome was. Nothing. More of the same ol’ same ol’. The promises were empty and the reward never came. We grew tired of waiting a long time ago and so now we’re no longer asking for equal treatment. We’re demanding it. In words of our own choosing. And we won’t stop demanding and fighting for equal treatment until we get it.)
Equal treatment? How so. Women have equality under the law. In fact, some jobs are biased towards women ala affirmative action. Heck, where I live, the police force MUST hire a certain percentile of women, regardless of if they are more qualified than male applicants.
Now, I’m all for women in the police force. I’ve known some amazing women police officers in my time. But you said that men and women should be treated as equal. And I agree. So then, shouldn’t men and women have an EQUAL chance at getting in as a cop? Shouldn’t their eligibility be EQUALLY based on their skills? Should we be hiring who ever performs the best in the required tests, whether it be men OR women?
You see, affirmative action like this isn’t equality. It’s flat out bias. The reason why more men seem to have physically demanding jobs is because by NATURE men are usually physically stronger. It has nothing to do with sexism. It has everything to do with hiring whoever performs the best.
Like I said, I have no problem with women in the police force, or as firefighters, or in the military. And I have known women who excel in all of those areas, and often times DO out perform the men. So then why shouldn’t we simply hire whoever is best qualified for the job?
Affirmative action is the ultimate in bigotry. It essentially says, “You aren’t good enough to do this job, but we will hire you on anyways. But you are only getting the job because of your race/gender, not because of your skill.”
Doesn’t that infuriate you? To suggest you need some sort of bending of the rules, otherwise you won’t qualify?
(Now, take that back to your site and share it. That should keep you and your brethren occupied for the rest of the day.)
What site would that be? Because I can assure you nothing I post here do I carry over to any other site I post on. I’m not here to try to “expose” some feminist “propaganda” to some “chauvinist” site. That would be terribly shallow of me. Though I’m sure you do get jerks here who try to pull that stuff all the time.
please somebody stop the madness – the posts are so long i can’t even summon the concentration to scroll through them let alone read the bloody stuff.
Johnny I do not have the time to address all of your points as I am busy researching for an essay in the real life that I have.
CoolAunt said:
You replied:
Johnny why do you ask this question? What is it about women who challenge men’s dominance? How does this equate to female superiority? Why do you need reassurance in something so basically silly?
Women may “appear” to have equality but unfortunately this does not transfer neatly to *real* life. For example think of the wage gap…it stands as 17% less for women here in the UK. There is also a very real “glass ceiling” in the world of business which you are not seeing as you are above the dammed thing. In addition, so what if an isolated police force or ten insist on a realistic ratio of women/men officers. 52% of the world is female! Why should we have a disproportionate male police force? Why should law and order be down to men? This suggests that men are in this annoying position of power which we keep whining about.
Moreover, Johnny, feminists work for women stretches way beyond the shores of the UK (and wherever you come from) so basically your argument is amazingly west-centric. It is not all about *us* you see. Getting a clue now?
I’m with SimplyWondered on this one. Life’s too short and Johnny’s posts are too long. Besides, his intellectual dishonesty (see Sparkle’s post above) renders discussion with him pointless.
Jimeny Cricket there are a lot of comments! None of which I’ve read sorry because I’m supposed to be working but needed to relay my actual jaw drop experience when I read the line in your post. I actually despair. Yes deary it was all about the sex for Mr Wright (note I use ‘Mr’ as an abbrev of murdering rapist), and it was his idiot partner’s fault that those women were killed.
Interviewer for new caster: “Ms Burley, can you give me an example of when you have used or might have used logic?”
Kay: “No, not one example actually.”
Interviewer: “You’re hired!”
By this measure my waster exboyfriend will soon be following in the footsteps of his east anglian neighbour, for his sex drive was apparently too high for me…nah I was just repulsed by him by the end!
Johnny clearly lives in the US as affirmative action is illegal in the UK.
Thanks polly I didn’t realise that.
Yes, I’ve experienced this one. It’s amazing how the narcissism prevents some from actually realising that the fault is not with the other person. *snort*
Lunchtime conversation on waning sex drives that made me very glad I’m not heterosexual “Well basically you just end up with a big boner prodding you in the back and you’re not interested..”
Although most dykes go around looking for true love, and I’m never sure which group is the more deluded.
“Well basically you just end up with a big boner prodding you in the back and you’re not interested..”
Baaaah! I can so relate to that. LOL!
(Johnny why do you ask this question? What is it about women who challenge men’s dominance? How does this equate to female superiority? Why do you need reassurance in something so basically silly?)
I ask because I have met many feminists who believe women are greater than men, and society should reflect that fact.
(Women may “appear” to have equality but unfortunately this does not transfer neatly to *real* life. For example think of the wage gap…it stands as 17% less for women here in the UK. There is also a very real “glass ceiling” in the world of business which you are not seeing as you are above the dammed thing.)
I believe you are referring to the highest end corporate jobs. Where I work, people are paid based on seniority. I am the only male in my department, and my boss is a woman. The general manager of the entire store is also a woman.
(In addition, so what if an isolated police force or ten insist on a realistic ratio of women/men officers. 52% of the world is female! Why should we have a disproportionate male police force?)
I explained that in my post. It isn’t about gender bias. It’s about hiring who ever is THE BEST for the job, meaning whoever scores the highest on entrance exams. I for one don’t care if males or females score the highest. I simply want the best qualified people policing my streets. Simple.
(Why should law and order be down to men? This suggests that men are in this annoying position of power which we keep whining about.)
Law and order shouldn’t be only down to man. But the plain and simple fact is that police work is physically demanding, and by nature, not all women can exceed a mans physical ability. It has nothing to do with gender bias, and everything to do with physical capability.
In contrast, the VAST majority of day-care workers are female. Why should raising our nations children be left to the women alone? It shouldn’t, of course. But I would guess that the reason more females work in daycare centers is because there are more females who apply with higher qualifications than the male applicants. It has nothing to do with gender bias against men. It’s about hiring the people who are most qualified. Plain and simple.
(Moreover, Johnny, feminists work for women stretches way beyond the shores of the UK (and wherever you come from) so basically your argument is amazingly west-centric. It is not all about *us* you see. Getting a clue now?)
I apologize for globalizing the feminist work based on the people of this particular site. That’s neither fair nor accurate. And I am big enough to admit it may have been shortsighted of me to do so.
However, seeming as I am based in western culture, all I have to go on is what I see occurring around me, as I am virtually powerless to affect that which happens outside my country. Affirmative action may be illegal in the UK, but it is certainly not in the US and Canada. As you say, “It’s not all about *us* you see.”
No, it isn’t all about you.
To CoolAunt: Life’s too short? By definition, life is the longest thing a person can possibly do. Way to completely dodge all of my points. Listen, I’m not here to try to make a bunch of enemies. I’m here to converse. I have been attacked on all fronts, labeled troll, insulted, ridiculed, and patronized. And not once have I insulted any of you. It’s clear that my mere presence here is somehow offensive, and nothing I could ever possibly say would get you to treat me as an equal. YOUR personal bias is what is rendering discussion with me useless, for I have made every effort to be civil, and conduct myself with decorum and respect.
Also, can you explain to me where I have been intellectually dishonest so I may avoid doing so again?
“Also, can you explain to me where I have been intellectually dishonest so I may avoid doing so again?”
Johnny I think everyone is so bored of you they have stopped reading your posts, certainly I have given up doing more than skim through them just in case you say something worth hearing.
This bit made me giggle though, because I have just skimmed through a previous post of yours and noticed this:
“It’s two pages of text. Come on now… It took me ten minutes to write, so it should only take two to read.”
Because if you really are seeking to learn and engage, as you say you are, then unless you are some kind of giant instabrain (which you aren’t, evidently) then you should not be approaching this leaning and engagement as something in which it is reasonable to take a mere 2 minutes to read a long comment and a mere 10 minutes to write one.
Most of us take time and thought to understand and appreciate the point of view of a person we are trying to engage with, to reflect on that which may be new to us. Most of us take time and thought to express our views with care so that we can move along in understanding and help further the conversation.
You don’t, and the fact that you don’t – while pretending to want to learn from or engage with us as feminists, seeking to understand our perspective – is intellectually dishonest. The fact that you don’t while also claiming, in response to calls that you should think about the beam in your own eye, that in fact you do engage in introspection, is intellectually dishonest. Clearly you *aren’t* here to engage or understand or introspect or even to listen and converse – you are here to tell us your views.
Other examples that spring into my head:
# That when first described by a commenter here as a Christian you said something like “just because I study the bible doesn’t mean I am a Christian” and only later actually identified yourself as a Christian. This was an evasive manoeuvre aimed at avoiding acknowledging who you are or where you are coming from.
# That when you were later called out for the above, you stated that you had kept quiet because Christians are in society a disliked and “persecuted” group. That is not true, especially not in the US, and not even here – you cannot possibly believe that it is true if you pay any attention to the world around you.
# You brought up the subject of abortion rights by suggesting that if there is no biological need/drive for sex then abortion should be illegal – yet when I responded to that, you simple stated that you aren’t talking about abortion. You were. Nobody else brought it up.
# You posed a false dichotomy and then, when it was pointed out (by me) that the dichotomy was false, you neither engaged with nor contradicted that but ignored it, preferring instead to accuse *me* of having a subjective view of truth (i.e. intellectual dishonesty) – WTF?
# In response to our demand that you recognise the continuing discrimination and inequality that women face, you started talking at length about how we feminists probably think that women are better than men and OMG what about affirmative action?! You cannot possibly believe, Johnny, that discrimination and disadvantage for women is limited to isolated spots so that it doesn’t affect ordinary women, you cannot possibly believe that as a result of affirmative action, centuries (nay millennia) of male supremacy have suddenly been turned around so that now men generally are at a disadvantage to women generally. Introducing affirmative action into a conversation about your failure to acknowledge that feminism is necessary – that was a manoeuvre designed to deflect attention away from your misconceived notion that women have equality either before the law or in their actual real lives onto some sideshow controversy that isn’t even relevant to 95% plus of the world’s women.
These aren’t the only occasions when you have been intellectually dishonest – just the ones that come off the top of my head. Although I don’t know why I am bothering, since clearly you will skim this post in 2 minutes and then, without taking the trouble to think about or digest what I said, speedtype for 10 minutes about why what I said makes no sense to you.
Since I have been moved – despite my earlier resolution to stop feeding you, Johnny Troll – to respond to your dumb dishonest question (oh yes another example – we’ve been highlighting your intellectual dishonesty repeated already, you just chose to ignore or disregard what we say) I will say one more thing.
You asked some while ago if it is your mere presence that irritates me. No. What irritates me is the wilful ignorance that you display at every turn. What irritates me is your insistence that we be nice to you, and explain things to you, repeatedly in some cases. What irritates me is that you insult us time and again while *simultaneously* presenting as hurt and confused that we have insulted you, and pretending that you have made every effort to be civil, decorous and courteous. What irritates me, too, is your intellectual dishonesty – see above – and failure to subject anything either we or you say to any critical analysis or reflection whatsoever.
Your “mere presence” here is not offensive or irritating – it is *you* that is offensive and irritating.
Right – 2 minutes to read, 10 minutes to spout, I reckon I’ve got time to get myself a cup of tea.
Maia: First off, that’s for responding to my post in detail.
(Johnny I think everyone is so bored of you they have stopped reading your posts, certainly I have given up doing more than skim through them just in case you say something worth hearing.)
I sure seem to stir up controversy for somebody who is so boring. But are you basically saying here you don’t actually read what I am saying to see if it makes sense, you just pick and choose which of my statements you feel like picking apart?
(Because if you really are seeking to learn and engage, as you say you are, then unless you are some kind of giant instabrain (which you aren’t, evidently) then you should not be approaching this leaning and engagement as something in which it is reasonable to take a mere 2 minutes to read a long comment and a mere 10 minutes to write one.)
Why?
(Most of us take time and thought to understand and appreciate the point of view of a person we are trying to engage with, to reflect on that which may be new to us. Most of us take time and thought to express our views with care so that we can move along in understanding and help further the conversation.)
Express your views with care? MOST of you just slap a few sentences together, and pat each other on the back. I don’t see any contrasting view points, or any discussion. Just statements to each other, that you all inevitably agree with.
I just can’t believe what I am hearing from you. You say, in the very same post:
“certainly I have given up doing more than skim through them [your posts] just in case you say something worth hearing”
“Most of us take time and thought to understand and appreciate the point of view of a person we are trying to engage with”
Am I the only person who thinks that’s hypocritical?
(You don’t, and the fact that you don’t – while pretending to want to learn from or engage with us as feminists, seeking to understand our perspective – is intellectually dishonest.)
You are confusing my understanding you with my agreeing with you. One does not have to agree with a mentality to understand it. After all, you claim to understand the driving mindset behind a patriarchal society, yet you surely don’t agree with that concept. Correct?
One learns a GREAT deal of information about a group of people by simply interacting with them. But you seem to think that I am only learning about feminism if I come to agree with it. You seem to imply that if I WAS learning about feminism, it would be immediately evident by me becoming completely agreeable. I just think that’s a fallacy.
(That when first described by a commenter here as a Christian you said something like “just because I study the bible doesn’t mean I am a Christian” and only later actually identified yourself as a Christian. This was an evasive manoeuvre aimed at avoiding acknowledging who you are or where you are coming from.)
Of course. Would you go to a chauvinist forum and immediately identify yourself as a feminist, and expect people to listen to anything you said?
(The fact that you don’t while also claiming, in response to calls that you should think about the beam in your own eye, that in fact you do engage in introspection, is intellectually dishonest. Clearly you *aren’t* here to engage or understand or introspect or even to listen and converse – you are here to tell us your views.)
Of course. That’s the only reason ANYONE is here. To tell people their views. That’s the entire basis of conversation. You tell a person your view, and they tell you their view. You go back and forth comparing view points, and your learn about each other. Like I said, it’s the basis of all conversation.
I mean, can you say with any logic that YOU are here for some other reason than to express your view point? No, of course not. You are here because your views are feminist, and by expressing them and exploring them with other people, you can further the cause of feminism. That’s just plain and simple logic.
You say I am “clearly” not here for introspection. Tell me, what tangible evidence exists which proves a person’s introspection? Is a person’s internal dialog provable by any means? Of course not.
If you are referring to the assumption that I cannot possibly be functioning in introspection because I as of yet do not agree with your views, then as I stated above, that is a fallacy. Understanding has nothing to do with acceptance. If it did, everybody who studied the history of Germany would be considered a functioning Nazi.
(# That when you were later called out for the above, you stated that you had kept quiet because Christians are in society a disliked and “persecuted” group. That is not true, especially not in the US, and not even here – you cannot possibly believe that it is true if you pay any attention to the world around you.)
This has absolutely nothing to do with what I “believe” to be true. This is based on personal experience. And it has been MY PERSONAL experience that I have been persecuted for my beliefs. Can you really argue that these PERSONAL EXPERIENCES did not happen? Of course not.
People make fun of my religion all the time. I provided a whole bunch of examples in my previous posts, which as you stated, you didn’t completely read. By definition, being treated poorly because of your beliefs is persecution.
(# You brought up the subject of abortion rights by suggesting that if there is no biological need/drive for sex then abortion should be illegal – yet when I responded to that, you simple stated that you aren’t talking about abortion. You were. Nobody else brought it up.)
You totally misinterpreted what I was saying, and GROSSLY over simplified. You are somehow suggesting that I used abortion rights as an example, then claimed I didn’t use them as an example. Untrue. I never claimed that.
What happened in that instance, was that I was using an EXAMPLE to show a CONCEPT. The example happened to be abortion rights. The concept was whether or not there is a biological sex drive. People seemed to think I was suddenly then talking about the concept of abortions right, not the concept of biological sex drive. That I changed my line of discussion away from biological sex drive, and to the concept of abortion rights.
No.
The concept never changed. I used abortion rights as the example for the discussion of concept of biological sex drive. I never said I didn’t use abortion rights as an example. What I said was that I wasn’t CURRENTLY discussing the CONCEPT of abortion rights, but was rather CURRENTLY discussing the CONCEPT of biological sex drive, and using the EXAMPLE of abortion rights to explore that concept.
(In response to our demand that you recognise the continuing discrimination and inequality that women face, you started talking at length about how we feminists probably think that women are better than men)
That is a bold faced lie. I asked one question to one person. That question was, “Do you think women are better than men.” Sparklematrix wondered why I would ask such a silly question. I replied, “Because I have talked to feminists who believe that women are better than men, and society should reflect that”.
That is all that was said.
How can you consider that “talking at length”?
(and OMG what about affirmative action?!)
Yes, what about it? I wanted to know what you thought about it. I know some feminists who are dead set against it, and some who demand it. Just as I know some black people who consider affirmative action a despicable form of racism, and some who consider it a Deus ex Machina.
(You cannot possibly believe, Johnny, that discrimination and disadvantage for women is limited to isolated spots so that it doesn’t affect ordinary women,)
Of course not.
(you cannot possibly believe that as a result of affirmative action, centuries (nay millennia) of male supremacy have suddenly been turned around so that now men generally are at a disadvantage to women generally.)
Of course not. However, that doesn’t mean that affirmative action is the right thing to do. I surely believe that men are at a disadvantage for being hired as police officers and fire fighters, because regardless of how they perform, a woman stands the chance of being hired over them. By definition, this puts them at a disadvantage, because it no longer matters how well they perform.
(Introducing affirmative action into a conversation about your failure to acknowledge that feminism is necessary – that was a manoeuvre designed to deflect attention away from your misconceived notion that women have equality either before the law or in their actual real lives onto some sideshow controversy that isn’t even relevant to 95% plus of the world’s women.)
I don’t see a whole lot of discussion between feminists about women in other parts of the world. Instead of trying to end the brutality of the way women are treated in middle eastern countries, and African nations,I see rallies for abortion rights and subsidized daycare centers. I see musings about white, rich, media females who support the western cultures brand of patriarchy.
Women in the rest of the world have it FAR worse than the women of Europe, and North America. But none of the feminists of these countries SEEM to hold the rights of these woman as their MAIN focus of activism.
(These aren’t the only occasions when you have been intellectually dishonest – just the ones that come off the top of my head.)
Well, I’m glad that you allowed me the chance to at least explain myself to you.
(Although I don’t know why I am bothering, since clearly you will skim this post in 2 minutes and then, without taking the trouble to think about or digest what I said, speedtype for 10 minutes about why what I said makes no sense to you.)
You under estimate the rate at which a person can accurately process information and expand upon it. Some people ate better at certain areas of this than others. For example, I’m terrible with numbers. When I work on a database, I spend hours trying to digest what the information means, and put it into a comprehensible presentation. Other people crunch the figures 10 times faster than me. My mind simply is not naturally talented with numbers. I function better with words. That’s just how I am. I’m not bad at math, I just an not gifted in it.
(Since I have been moved – despite my earlier resolution to stop feeding you, Johnny Troll – to respond to your dumb dishonest question (oh yes another example – we’ve been highlighting your intellectual dishonesty repeated already, you just chose to ignore or disregard what we say)
Well, after having people dodge my statements and question left right and center, and watching them pick and choose what to respond to, patronizing me all the way, I responded in kind. I’ll admit, that was wrong of me. I should try to “fight fire with fire” so to speak. Two wrongs do not make a right, and I can accept that. My apologies.
(You asked some while ago if it is your mere presence that irritates me. No. What irritates me is the wilful ignorance that you display at every turn. What irritates me is your insistence that we be nice to you, and explain things to you, repeatedly in some cases.)
I never once commanded, demanded,or insisted you be nice to me. I ASKED that I be treated as an equal. I ASKED that I not be patronized, so long as I do not patronize you people. That’s it. Plain and simple.
(What irritates me is that you insult us)
Whoa whoa whooooa! Hold on one second there! I NEVER insulted ANYONE! That has never been my intent, and I seek to avoid insults AT ALL COSTS! If I have insulted you, or do insult you at any moment, I expect to be corrected, because I WILL apologize for it. I try to never, ever insult people. Personal insults and banter never contribute to the exploration of ideas.
(time and again while *simultaneously* presenting as hurt and confused that we have insulted you,)
I can go back and list some specific insults if you like. Off the top of my head, I believe stormy “patted me on the head” in a patronizing manner.
(and pretending that you have made every effort to be civil, decorous and courteous.)
I have. You are confusing my agreeing with you again with being civil and courteous. People can completely disagree with each other, and still be civil to each other. For example, I am Christian, and one of my best friends is a Lesbian. There are some areas where we TOTALLY disagree with each other. But somehow, we remain civil to each other, and our friendship is never threatened. I love her to death, and wouldn’t trade her for the world.
(What irritates me, too, is your intellectual dishonesty – see above -)
Well, I hope my explanations will suffice you to no longer be irritated by my assumed intellectual dishonesty. I think there was just a misunderstanding, and I hope I have been able to clear that up for you.
(and failure to subject anything either we or you say to any critical analysis or reflection whatsoever.)
What evidence could I possibly provide to you proving I have subjected what is said here to my own critical analysis? Do you expect me to suddenly accept and agree with your views? Can a person not analyze a concept, and remain separated from it?
(Your “mere presence” here is not offensive or irritating – it is *you* that is offensive and irritating.)
So, what you are saying is that you don’t mind the fact that a white christian male is here conversing, you just don’t like his attitude. I can understand that. But as I said, I hope I have cleared up the misunderstanding about my supposed “intellectual dishonesty”.
Now, I could easily start pointing the finger at others on here in regards to this form of “dishonesty”, but as was suggested to me, I should remove the plank from my own eye first. And thus shall my efforts be towards.
Right – 2 minutes to read, 10 minutes to spout, I reckon I’ve got time to get myself a cup of tea.
Listen, we may not agree, we may not get along, but I do honestly appreciate you taking the time to respond to me like this.
I realize my posts are pretty damn long, and that a lot of people probably find them boring. But that’s just how I am. Call me boring and dull of you must, but this is how I communicate, and I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. Each unto his own, no? I also realize that I am probably just kinda not wanted here, and trust me when I say I feel privileged to have gotten this far. You people are far more tolerant than many people out there.
I don’t want to be here to antagonize anyone. I just want to converse. My apologies for any ill will, all around.
(oops, in my very first sentence above, I said, “thats for responding to my post”. It should read, THANKS for responding to my post, not “thats”. Sorry for the stupid typo.)
You asked some while ago if it is your mere presence that irritates me. No. What irritates me is the wilful ignorance that you display at every turn. What irritates me is your insistence that we be nice to you, and explain things to you, repeatedly in some cases. What irritates me is that you insult us time and again while *simultaneously* presenting as hurt and confused that we have insulted you, and pretending that you have made every effort to be civil, decorous and courteous. What irritates me, too, is your intellectual dishonesty – see above – and failure to subject anything either we or you say to any critical analysis or reflection whatsoever.
Great closing comments Maia.
Admittedly, I reached the point of skimming his posts a while back. *yawn*
Johnny I’m a very tolerant person but here is where you start to cross the line. There are plenty of discussions and activism on this blog concerning women from less privileged backgrounds, some of us even work in real life supporting these women in one way or another.
In as far as the “but someone has it worse that you” tactic, I suppose you realise that this is a old and tired manoeuvre to silence women. We do what we have to do to survive Johnny and if that includes keeping our own house in order then so be it, it’s also, about what’s relative to women and their individual lives. Use anymore tries at shaming or covert attempts at suggesting women should be martyrs and you are out.
I think Johnny is right Sparks. I mean next time something bad happens to a man in England, like one of those who endlessly whine when they get extremely drunk and have casual sex with a woman they don’t know that well and then get falsely accused of rape like this poor chap
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/dailymail/home.html?in_page_id=1766
We should say ’shut up – what are you whingeing about, you could be in Darfur’.
(sarcasm, or even irony, intended).
Gawd what a typical depressing story.
But yeah – a Cambridge MA student, what’s he worried about? he could have been at Sunderland Polytechnic FFS get a grip Jack.
Gah! Johnny’s response to Maia appeared after I posted.
His posts are just getting longer. I worry about the pixels now — can the world supply this many pixels for no reason whatsoever? It could become a pixel crisis! Think about it, all the pixels wasted by all the trolls — this could be serious folks!
Johnny, you just become more and more troll-like with each successive post. Stop defending yourself (and taking yourself so damn seriously), stop attacking feminists, shut up, and only ask RELEVANT questions, without deviating from the topic into the “What would Jesus do?” rhelm. Then you will get treated with respect. In feminist spaces, males have to EARN respect, you don’t just get it because you were born with a certain anatomical configuration. Here in feminist blogland, it’s not like the rest of the world.
Some advice at no additional charge (really, it’s to help the skimmers like myself). Learn some basic code. To make a quote go italic: ‘pointy bracket left’, the letter ‘i’, ‘pointy bracket right’. To close the tag, ‘pointy bracket left’, ‘/i’, and ‘pointy bracket right’. If you really want to dazzle, then replace the ‘i’s with ‘blockquote’ and watch the formatting fly! Looks like this (but replace the square brackets with pointy ones):
[i]Text you want to italicise[/i]
[blockquote]Text you want to quote in a flashy way, and have a hankering for some touchtyping[/blockquote]
Really, FFS Johnny, let the *head patting* go before it eats you up. It was fairly tongue-in-cheek, and not overly malicious. Get over it. If you are so mortally wounded by that, you should try being a female (or POC) — we get that, times a thousand, on a daily basis.
“I don’t see a whole lot of discussion between feminists about women in other parts of the world. ”
I also don’t get why so many people, especiallly men, don’t see it. Example of male friendly support to female coworkers or classmates in their research? Ask her to see a movie. Go subject yourself to torture desensitization with me, sweetie!
Talk about clueless yet sadistic comments offering support or solidarity with women. It’s everywhere, and you don’t see the discussions? About international trade of women for sex? Women are always on the table in negotiations.
International torture porn, or what we call ‘movie reviews’ of Saw in the male US pornocracy media are dismissed as subjects by all but my female and female-friendly friends.
When someone wants you to see it WITH them, in which case you should go because it could give you some great feminist analysis of (blank, fill in pro-porninterested psudo-feminist topic). Write a women’s studies thesis in my head while watching porn? To relax? So many males in the (U.S. and otherwise I’m trying to talk to were raised seeing porn, and continue to consume it’s ideas without knowing or understanding, in the form of bi-partisan politics talks that nievely assume strange logical positions or ask bizarrely phrased questions? They are trying to pose us in text form, because that’s what they think women want, they read about it ‘somewhere’. Remember, there is a disadvantage in source recognition if you were raised male. Not merely a bias.
IF one declines this invitation to watch fluffy mass media snuff films, one may hear, “That’s okay, luv, Saw sucked after the third one.” What, not enough ideas about sadistic psychology? Not enough femalevictims escaped for a sequel? Did they kill off your favorite strong female character? Thanks for understanding so well, but no thanks. That’s not a statement of understanding or knowing why those “pats on the head” hurt feminists so tremendously.
If you “get” female violence, you’d know why it hurts.
All meant as respectfully as possible in the current climate of discussion. I love your analysis sparklematrix, I’ve read your work before, you are an invaluable resource and thinker in my own daily toils. Thanks for the forum, apologize for the length, mispellings, etc, but I’m a feminist thinker not a secretary, guys.
Hi AmberBug thanks and welcome. Say it as it is sister
I meant to say Sparkle, yeah, that was well-insulting! It’s like Johnny has complete and utter blindness to your Amnesty International category on the right hand side of the page.
Nor does he have a damn clue on most of the activism work that many of the bloggers do, either feminist activism or victim support work.
*Quick!* Johnny!
Get a cluestick — and make it a big one!
Exactly stormy – and he needs to have a look at my “women and war” category too. He’s just assumed that I sit here fretting about privileged white women issues (which there is nothing wrong with either) without taking the time to see that I actually work face to face with the victims of war.
The thing of it is, even if one doesn’t specifically work with trafficked wimmin, or victims of war, there is a continuum and large crossover.
Dammit if I don’t wanna hold onto my ‘tiara privileges’ right here and now! Because it’s just so rosy for the average womyn.
Lemme see, in the last three months, about four incidents of sexual harrassment. How many males, average males, can claim the same?
Yeah sure, my sexual harrassment weren’t rapes, but I’ve survived a few of those over the years, and DV.
White middleclass feminist privilege! It’s soooo great!
Now whiteboy, STFU. You know nothing of which you speak.
(yeah, when I want to get angry and rude, you will be the first to know)
Yeah, I’m not suggesting that we all have to do the same sort of work, it’s all part of the huge configuration of feminism. Women’s lives, experiences, work and activism are not static …they are fluid and part of a lifetime continuum. Therefore, Johnny needs to get his facts straight before he starts preaching.
Rummage – now where’s my tiara?
Any rad-female identified guys out there know about..
( manboychild turns up television or radio HERE, or complains you talk so quiet HERE, or gets all sad about his loss of hearing HERE but won’t turn up assistive hearing disability rights equiptment HERE because he lost the batteries THere. Or “forgot” to get some when he went out.
Or he says, yeah, I read all about that in the new zine I got at the stripclub. Wanna analyze it with me? It’s educational. And if you don’t tip the stripper it’s not exploitation of women. Egalitarian. Yeah, you’re the expert. Go read your mag/rag defender’s favorite institution. Labor rights? Huh? Anyone awake out there, guYs? Women have been students to men long enough. Phrase your mental responses with care, I think fembrains have more gray matter, or something.
I like to scribble. and mistype for the sake of keeping up with my thoughts.
Emotcions rule. Logic is twisted. freud will never solve the woman question if he can’t put down his lad’s mags or “liberal Literature studies material”
I wish there was a better way to communicate it, but ShutTHhellup so I can think and talk to my friends about real topics and issues.
Maleidentifiedpouserpsudoantifeministbaiting nice guy confused pornprogrammedresponse? “Aproditey rising, you go grrrl. He salutes you not witha militant fist (wifebeater), but his middle finger. He is SOOOO Confused right now, i almost feel bad. But then I stop. Because it’s funny. Their shit is hilarious.
Porn is so revealing. If women lead the discussion. sometimes men need to go do homework instead of ask silly questions. If he’s real nice about asking you might suggest a topic. BUt some aren’t nice at all. How do we know? we’re just stupid confused crazyassraceblindwomen who abandon each other in world politics cuz you can’t read or keep track.
Did that help get the eyebeam out? Hope it didn’t hurt alot. You’ll be fine. Go read pornfunded media and come back and tell me about it. Silly, sweet malesex-identified. They have no idea. Because they’ve always ignored our work.
Per their fathers, their fathers fathers. See memo.
And sometimes thatstreamofconsciousness just maybe hit their blind spot? I’ll not be holding breath…
it’s the non functioning sideofthemalebrain…
i learned stream of consciousness in a highschool ‘advanced’ lit class, and wasn’t even exposed the idea of mapping the mind until waaaaaayy later.
hey on PBS they went from the theme ‘british invasion and swooning screaming hysterical femalefans, to Lawrence Welk. What is the intended constituancy or audience’s gender, age, etc? they are trying to enchant? It’s not making ME want to donate cash. Must be something wrong with my reception, either that or I am a chick.
They don’t get it because you are not really the intended market, and they are tuned into porn and crap ideas. NO offense, for me too. It’s why I don’t get it immediately when I talk to different women and girls. Different ages, races, classes, genders=different demographics to sell to. We aren’t really a presence in the stock market as marketer’s, but product.
Economics. Whose version?
A few bits and pieces:
(or covert attempts at suggesting women should be martyrs and you are out.)
I assume you mean “out” as in censored. *nods* I can’t argue with that. After all, this is your site, not mine.
(Use anymore tries at shaming)
I would gladly compile a list of each and every shaming tactic used in this thread against me if I thought it could serve as logical insight to any of you. However, were I to do so, I would surely be met with more of the same. That much I have learned.
Listen, I chose my words carefully, as stated from an innocent personal observation. I said, “I don’t see” not “No one ever sees”. I said “seem”, highlighted in capital letters. Is there no way I can share a personal observation without it being interpreted as globalization?
(In feminist spaces, males have to EARN respect)
Name one single male who has earned your respect.
(I also don’t get why so many people, especially men, don’t see it.)
Well for starters, being excluded from the girls club means we are not in the same frame of mind as you. We’re not part of the same circles, projects, or peer groups.
(Lemme see, in the last three months, about four incidents of sexual harrassment. How many males, average males, can claim the same?)
More than are willing to admit. Far, far more than are willing to admit.
Would it get me in trouble if I said I just skimmed the rest of your post?
(Go read pornfunded media and come back and tell me about it.)
What media sources are funded by porn??
(Nor does he have a damn clue on most of the activism work that many of the bloggers do, either feminist activism or victim support work.)
Well, I certainly am beginning to see that, now. There’s only some much reliable information one can gather about such things without knowing what sources to pursue. The internet is a big place. The world, even bigger.
(International torture porn, or what we call ‘movie reviews’ of Saw in the male US pornocracy media are dismissed as subjects by all but my female and female-friendly friends.)
Uh, you do realize men were brutally tortured and killed in those movies too, right? In fact, more men die in movies than women. Bar none. And you seem to be leaving out one key fact from those movies: A woman becomes the apprentice of the sadistic killer, and carries on his work from movies 2 and 3, committing horrible atrocities to men.
Honest question: Should I be standing up against this violence against men? DOES anyone stand up against violence against men?
I have a question about porn. Should females have the right to be allowed to make porn if they want?
If the answer is yes, then:
Do you believe females are forced into the porn industry because of social circumstances and are being exploited by men?
If the answer is yes, then, shouldn’t we seek to make all forms of pronography illegal, and prosecute those involved in it?
Feminist bingo card.
That is all.
amberbug – newsocpoetryrocksisall
*wonders why I am bothering*
1)you may notice that there IS one regular male contributor on here Johnny – or you would if you bothered reading other people’s posts.
2) Should females have the right to be allowed to make porn if they want? No – and no-one on here is advocating making porn as far as I noticed. Everyone who contributes on here as far as I know IS anti-porn. The fact that a woman does something doesn’t make it right. I give you the late Myra Hindley as an example. However most of the women who are porn ‘actors’ (as opposed to the people making the money out of it) will be in that ‘job’ because of prior abuse. Please see the numerous posts on this subject here and elsewhere.
3)There is a problem being boring if you’re monopolizing the space and the conversation. It is considered to be what is commonly known as rude.
As my mother used to say “hear all, see all, say nowt” Ok the context was different but the basic principle holds good.
Brief point in ref to “shame” as used in my comment. I use the word “shame” as a collective and historical tool used (usually by men) to make women uncomfortable for not putting the interests of others first. This is where the “martyrdom” I mentioned comes in. The shame you speak of Johnny is personal and it is not on par with the combined experience of women as a group. The former is a result of intense social conditioning the second a personal and individual experience.
Also – I am not capable of “censoring” as I merely run a blog not the government. I can delete yes, but censor? no.
I just got this to say
You say, in the very same post:
“certainly I have given up doing more than skim through them [your posts] just in case you say something worth hearing”
“Most of us take time and thought to understand and appreciate the point of view of a person we are trying to engage with”
Am I the only person who thinks that’s hypocritical?
What he doesn’t get is I’m not engaging with him. I’ve long since given up *engaging* with him. I post merely to mock and expose him for the antifeminist idiot troll that he is.
The only reason I posted my last comment to Johnny was because his claim to thoughtful analysis in the light of 2 minutes to read / 10 minutes to write made me snort.
The only reason I’m posting this comment is because his suggestion that I may have been “engaging” with him in my last two or three comments also made me snort. If he thinks this, then he is sorely in need of a CLUE about what “engaging” means – as we already knew, from his total failure to genuinely engage here (despite his protestations to the contrary) and his suggestion that “conversation” is about each person stating their view – hm, funny that listening doesn’t come into his idea of engagement…
As polly styrene said – “hear all, see all, say nowt”
JimmyHo.
Richie
Rich (when he isn’t waffling on about menz politics)
That was three off the top of my head. There are more.
So the man-hating theory of yours must be shot to pieces now? (Please don’t feel compelled to respond)
Sparklematrix, would you delete any of my posts if I openly started calling people idiots?
Are you asking my permission to be ‘open’ about what is already in your thoughts?
Moreover, are you aware that your remark is a passive/aggressive tactic?
Games Johnny…
You could try it Johnny and see what happened….But well done on the brevity front.
Hiya, Sparkle*Matrix! What’s goin’ on in this monstrously long thread? Is Johnny a MRA? Are you all okay in here?
I dunno. If I found myself at a blog where I thought the large number of contributors were ‘idiots’, then I’d be inclined to go somewhere else.
I’d only stay if I was determined to troll.
Don’t think he’s an activist but he’s Mens Rights all right.
You want to talk games? I just asked a simple yes or no question about whether or not I would have my post deleted if i called somebody an idiot, and my “answer” was in the form of two different questions.
(Don’t think he’s an activist but he’s Mens Rights all right.)
Is there anything wrong with wanting to stand up for Men’s Rights? I am a man after all.
You see, what I have done here is expose the double standard which you hold men accountable to.
If you were to answer “no” to my question, then I would be considered equal, and would be able to call people idiots here and not be censored. I would be allowed to directly and openly insult the women here, just as they are free to do so to me.
But if you answered “yes”, then this would mean that I am not allowed to insult the women here using words like “idiot”, and in order for you to maintain your facade of equality, you would be forced to delete the posts of any women here who called me and idiot. It would mean that in your eyes, I am not an equal. It would mean that women are entitled to special privileges which I am not.
Now, I expect the same old shaming tactics here. I expect everyone to tell me, “Oh grow up. What, you can’t handle being called an idiot? You’re making too big of a deal about this? Wah wah, I hope I didn’t hurt your feelings. If you think we’re all idiots, then just leave.”
But none of those actually address what should be a very simple question: Should men and women be held to different standards.
Johnny if you want to agitate for men’s rights then go to a MRA blog not here – this site is for feminists and pro-feminists. In addition, it’s not unusual to answer a question with a question – I do it my line of work all the time. I’m also not ‘gaming’ as I can see the game. (there’s a big difference)
You see -apart from the passive/aggressive tactic…you are playing the “wish fulfilment” game where I get to ban you and you get to say “see I told you…this is what they *always* do”
Please though mummy sparkle – make it stop now……
Oh and Johnny – if you’re being insulted maybe it’s for some reason other than being a man? Like you are an idiot?
If you were to answer “no” to my question, then I would be considered equal, and would be able to call people idiots here and not be censored. I would be allowed to directly and openly insult the women here, just as they are free to do so to me.
And let the trolling begin….
(OK, I knew it had already, that just sounded coooool)
I can’t resist…
It would mean that in your eyes, I am not an equal. It would mean that women are entitled to special privileges which I am not.
Duh. Whole world around you is full of privileges for those with the dangly bits. We claim ONE teeeny weeeny space, a feminist space, a woman-friendly space — where the ‘normal’ rules don’t apply. Suddenly! that’s all “mwah mwah, but I’m being discriminated against! (mwah!)”
Here in this space, in feminist spaces, women do get ‘privilege’ (to a degree). They get the freedom to express themselves in a way they cannot in The Outside World (aka Club Penis).
As for the feminists here being ‘idiots’ (as deemed by Johnnyboy). Big fat wrong end of the stick. Most of the women here would score incredibly highly on an IQ test (more of a menz test, but still, that’s the yardstick you lot devised… never takes into account musical or artistic ability).
But oh noes! We can’t have uppity wimmin can we? Must send in the heavy-duty MRAs to quell that little uprising.
And all we ever get is the calibre of Johnny.
Truthfully Johnny, you were initially treated with respect, urged to learn more (rather that spouting the gawd stuff) etc. Only when it was apparent you were not here to learn, but to preach the gospel of ManPower/Gawdluv, did we ‘turn’ on you. We gave you quite a bit of chance to prove how genuine you were.
I have to ask — do you even believe yourself (with the “can I call wimmin idiots” thang)? In my comment 95, I basically called you a troll and an idiot, in couched terms (ok, perhaps not so couched, but I gave it a go!).
Here’s a bible question for you. Do you really think that (your) gawd gives any more or less consideration and care for humans/christians above that of the average mono-celled organisms? ‘He’ created all of it, so ‘he’ should care for all of it with equal worth. Otherwise its a needlessly complicated ‘life’ plan with some serious flaws. Humans aren’t the B-all, end-all. How arrogant of you to think that gawd is in a big human-format too. Male human at that.
Outside the box Johnny. Outside the box.
Expand your thinking.
Do you really think that (your) gawd gives any more or less consideration and care for humans/christians above that of the average mono-celled organisms?
Stormy: I could answer that straight off, from bible training, and I *know* the answer would come from a bigot’s mouth. You’re questioning the guy who waited until Paul lived before he reversed the segregation and his preference between people, let alone other animals and micro-organisms.
Someone asked in a forum once for scriptures to justify what was effectively racism – and I found about ten in a matter of minutes.
Johnny makes perfect sense to me in a lot of ways, steeped in scriptural training as I am. We use the word ‘christian’ as synonymous for ‘good person’ but it’s truer to say that the ‘good people’ Christianity turns out are those that are much more interested in humanity than in doctrine. Getting there in the environment of a rigid religion is much more difficult than it should be.
Still, it might be interesting to see if himself replies while this is in moderation.
“Is there anything wrong with wanting to stand up for Men’s Rights? I am a man after all.”
Is there anything wrong with wanting to stand up for *Men*’s Rights within a world in which *women* are constantly oppressed? Yes, I *do* think so.
We never said that women should be superior to men but *equal* to men (Dworkin said that herself: “Biological superiority: the world’s most deadly idea”: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIID.html )
And then hear Johnny go: “I am a man after all”
Are you trying to be one of the guardians of the male supremacist status quo, Johnny?
Masculinity is socially constructed, Johnny. Males should be human beings instead and try to stop being (ab)users of women. This is one of the points we’re trying to make! Simple.
You just don’t understand what it’s like oppression under *patriarchy* ’cause you’ve never been a member of the oppressed group. MRA’s would have us believe that men are also oppressed. What a lot of horseshit!
Men (for the overwhelmingly most part) are not the ones who are beaten, raped, prostituted, etc. on a daily basis. *Women* are, in this male-dominated world!
Men simply should learn how to genuinely communicate with women instead of viewing them as objects or “b***hes!
I hope you understand what I’m talking about someday. Good luck, Johnny, if you don’t…
The women are becoming irritated with you Johnny.
Is this feeling familiar?
Is this fulfilling your ‘pattern’ and ‘wish fulfilment’? (to perpetuate said pattern)
Look – more questions.
As I have mentioned many a time on here – if you are having a reaction to what is being said…what is it that you are so in need of defending…?
(In addition, it’s not unusual to answer a question with a question – I do it my line of work all the time.)
A question isn’t an answer. I asked a very simple yes or not question. No demands, no threats, just a simple, yes or not question. But you couldn’t even answer that. Why? One reason could be that you won’t admit to the fact that YOU are guilty of holding men and women here to completely different standards, because you know it is wrong to do, and you don’t want to admit you could be wrong.
It is my personal belief that you would delete my post if I called someone here an idiot, but you would not delete the post of someone else who calls ME an idiot. That is a double standard, and you know it.
Of course, you can prove me totally wrong. And I am fully willing to admit that I may in fact BE totally wrong. As a human like the rest of you, I am wrong frequently.
It would just take a simple answer of yes or no. Either that, or I could call someone here an idiot, and see if my post gets deleted. But I will not be doing that, because I believe insults have no place in the exploration of ideas.
(You see -apart from the passive/aggressive tactic…you are playing the “wish fulfilment” game)
And you are completely dodging the issue.
(where I get to ban you and you get to say “see I told you…this is what they *always* do”)
I have formulated a hypothesis, and am performing an experiment. I am leaving it completely up to you as to what the conclusion will be.
(Truthfully Johnny, you were initially treated with respect)
How?
(Someone asked in a forum once for scriptures to justify what was effectively racism – and I found about ten in a matter of minutes.)
Ah, yes, the whole buffet tactic, or picking out some irrelevant scriptures, destroying their context, and using them to prove a point which doesn’t exist. I know it well. People do it all the time. And then after they refuse to hear the explanation, they claim victory. Quite like a child who needs to get in the last word.
(Is there anything wrong with wanting to stand up for *Men*’s Rights within a world in which *women* are constantly oppressed? Yes, I *do* think so.)
Are men being oppressed anywhere in the world? 70% of divorces are initiated by women. 90% of people killed in the military are men. More men commit suicide than women. More men make up the homeless population that women. Men die earlier than women.
These are all facts. Is this not oppression?
(Masculinity is socially constructed, Johnny. Males should be human beings instead and try to stop being (ab)users of women. This is one of the points we’re trying to make! Simple.)
You seem to indicate that women do not currently abuse men, nor have in the past.
If you were wealthy, and I married you under false pretenses, only to divorce you and take half your assets, you would consider that emotional and financial abuse, correct? 70% of women initiate divorce.
Now, I know what you are going to say. You are going to say, “It’s the mans fault that the women are divorcing them”. And perhaps it is.
However, let’s say MEN initiated 70% of divorces. Would you then say that it was the fault of the women? Or would you say that the men are abandoning their families?
Here’s what I’m trying to get down to: In all my journeys, I have never, never once come across a feminist who believes women are at fault for ANYTHING. I have never once heard a feminist say, “Well, that’s her own fault”. I have never heard a feminist say, “Well it was her choice, and she made it wrong”.
In fact, I have never heard anybody who claims to be a feminist ever admit to doing anything wrong. Ever.
I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. Just that I haven’t ever seen it happen. And it seems to be a disturbing trend.
(Men (for the overwhelmingly most part) are not the ones who are beaten, raped, prostituted, etc. on a daily basis. *Women* are, in this male-dominated world!)
There is one reason, and one reason only for that” physical strength. Crime knows no racial boundary, no gender boundary. Crime precedes across all cultures without limits. And just as physical strength lends it self to certain jobs, so does it lend it;s self to certain crimes.
Ask yourself, in men were the physically weaker sex, would we be seeing same criminal oppression of women?
And as far as prostitution goes, you say it as if the women doesn’t have the choice, as if she is forced into a life of prostitution. As if she’s just a victim of her environment. As if men force her to do it. Is this what you are suggesting, or am I wrong?
(MRA’s would have us believe that men are also oppressed. What a lot of horseshit!)
If men are not being oppressed, why is the prison system filled with more men that women? Why are men more likely to become drug addicts? Why does more violence happen between men that between men and women? Why are the majority of murder victims men?
Why isn’t our system doing more to ensure that these young boys do not grow up to be junkies and criminals?
(Men simply should learn how to genuinely communicate with women instead of viewing them as objects or “b***hes!)
How you define communication? All the men I know treat the women in their lives very well. And I personally do not view women as sex objects or b***hes. That’s no way to win points with the ladies. *chuckles*
(Is this fulfilling your ‘pattern’ and ‘wish fulfilment’? (to perpetuate said pattern) )
No, it is my firmest hope that I am able to find a break in the pattern I have come to see around me. I surely know that it is a fallacy to globalize the actions of a particular movement. Which is why I earnestly seek some one, anyone, to show me that my observations and hypothesis are not all encompassing.
(As I have mentioned many a time on here – if you are having a reaction to what is being said…what is it that you are so in need of defending…?)
I submit to you the very same question.
Do you not think you should be charging for this Spark? Cos you appear to be providing free therapy at the mo…..
And I’m doing it now, but clue – think two year old, think ‘mummy why are you ignoring me’? think tantrum, think naughty step….
Johnny has all the woman-hating tropes down to a tee and I wonder if he realises it’s because of men like him that feminism exists.
Don’t know if anyone wants to respond to him before he is banned?
My only reaction Johnny is….YAWN
Ah, yes, the whole buffet tactic, or picking out some irrelevant scriptures, destroying their context, and using them to prove a point which doesn’t exist. I know it well. People do it all the time. And then after they refuse to hear the explanation, they claim victory. Quite like a child who needs to get in the last word.
Yeah, I know it’s pointless even responding.
No, the scriptures were not out of context, nor were they meant to be (it was, after all, a novel-writing forum).
So Abraham’s life doesn’t ‘prove that point?’ Rachel and Isaac’s marriage doesn’t ‘prove that point’? The punishment of Cain doesn’t ‘prove that point’? The story of Esau doesn’t ‘prove that point’?
We haven’t even got out of Genesis yet…
It’s an insulting presumption on your part – in your mind I was ‘playing games’. You claim to be learned in scripture – how could you have missed the consistent lessons against the mixing of peoples, so far as to claim I would have to use those scriptures out of context?
And for the record – not all discussion has to be about one-up-manship (which is what you presumed I turned to the scriptures for, rather than the provision of information which had been asked).
You wanted to know where you’d insulted anyone? That’s one. I’m not going to address any others.
For the record – you didn’t answer Stormy’s question. Somehow, in that over-abundance of words, it got missed.
Sparkle: he’s been dancing around calling us idiots for posts and posts now. Why not just let him lose his game? He’s set out the rules after all.
And Johnny – why is it wrong for women to have an uninterrupted conversation?
(because you know it is wrong to do, and you don’t want to admit you could be wrong.
Oh yeah, that was another insult btw. Just in case you hadn’t realised. Same sort of insult – you’re presuming (wrongly I believe) to know what someone else is thinking and what motivates their actions.
Heh – up to you if you approve that last one Sparks – no point asking him a question he can’t answer.
*note to self* never respond immediately to an insult.
One word – entitlement.
“My only reaction Johnny is….YAWN”- Sparkle*Matrix
Same here, Sparkle*Matrix!
Please, is there any way you could *make it stop*? Johnny just doesn’t understand us!
Maybe you should write “Johnny be good” (like the tune) in one of your next posts. *Joking* he, he, couldn’t help it…
“And as far as prostitution goes, you say it as if the women doesn’t have the choice, as if she is forced into a life of prostitution. As if she’s just a victim of her environment. As if men force her to do it. Is this what you are suggesting, or am I wrong?” – Johnny
Too long and too complicated to explain my opinions on this “choice” issue, Johnny. It is more complex than you think. Here’s my answers:
– from my website: https://www.againstpornography.org/womeninsexindustry.html
– and from my blog:
http://maggiehaysagainstporn.blogspot.com/2008/03/on-choices.html
“Now, I know what you are going to say. You are going to say, “It’s the mans fault that the women are divorcing them”. And perhaps it is.” – Johnny
Johnny, I’m glad that, at least, you acknowledged that “perhaps it is”.
Good you said that you do not view women as sex objects or b***hes, but if you use pornography (i.e. woman-hating propaganda material) there is no doubt that, at one point or another, you will view women that way — if not already.
Apart from that, little to say apart from the fact that that you didn’t get my (our) points at all. And I don’t believe in neither biological explanations nor patriarchal religions. I am a radical feminist who believes in socialization (like other rad fems do)… Good luck, Johnny!
Yawn…
dear all
my eyes have now been opened to the oppression of my sex by you women. divorcing me and suchlike. also many men are in prison and no woman has apologised to me at all – my like are dying in wars started by you women and you are too busy choosing to work in the overpaid cossetted (corseted?) sex industry to care.
i am off to the barricades to stand up for men’s rights with my new guru johnny. my one hope is that the barricades are supported by poles around which suitably empowered women may cavort.
may god in the clouds in a white dress with a big bushy beard have mercy on you all. but not too much as it is your fault.
i’m afraid you will just have to struggle on without me to explain stuff for you. try not to worry about being idiots.
i say this with love.
simply
Question to the group: How many times did Johnny hit MRA Bingo with #106?
My fav’ has to be: Men die earlier than women.
Because don’t you just know that all the evol wimminz are making the poor menz die younger? You would think that menz monopolising science and medicine they’d be right onto it. *shrug*
And I just have to hold my sides for this one:
In all my journeys, I have never, never once come across a feminist who believes women are at fault for ANYTHING.
Mwah mwah mwah – oh the irony! Take a look at what post this is on!
But we ARE stormy, we are killing da menz with our evol feminist supernatural powers. It’s nothing to do with unhealthy lifestyles or owt like that. How can you remain so unenlightened now SW has spelt it out for you?
I forgot, we are tagging along behind our new leader Johnny, and his evol sidekick SW now.
Thank goodness there is a man/men around to tell us what to do and what to think! *phew*
“How many times did Johnny hit MRA Bingo with #106?” – Stormy
I’d say roughly ’round about 40 times (counting each sentence in the post that looked MRA-like to me), but I might be wrong…
Simply Wondered: excellent point made in #115!
Oh and Johnny if you keep reading feminist websites, you will learn that every single one your arguments is the first, middle, and last refuge of sexists clinging to privilege.
106 was so chocka fulla MRAisms, my head is spinning around and around and around…
SW, are you back yet, or are you having too much MRA fun?
What’s it like on The Other Side?
Wha’ spin like this?
“106 was so chocka fulla MRAisms, my head is spinning around and around and around…”
Same here!
Sparkle*Matrix: I love that tune by Dead or Alive. Thanks for the youtube link.
Aww that’s awesome sparks and really made me smile. Pete Burns was cool before he had all that weird surgery. Now that’s what I CALL gender bending…
Yeah, I love it, just it looks so dated now apart from Pete Burns who looks as cool as evar. (looks weird now tho :/) Yes, that’s what I call real gender bending too.
Woah, those fingernails!
More like Linda Blair in The Exorcist really. Complete with the green puke. I get that way around MRAs.
“More like Linda Blair in The Exorcist really. Complete with the green puke. I get that way around MRAs.”
Me, too. Cannot stand MRAs. Shit, you seen that movie Stormy? That’s fucking Christian horror for Johnny. *smile*
Ah, I see…more like this?
Indeed Maggie – I’ve just watched some trailers for this film (how can you tell I’m supposed to be starting an essay?) and the “woman/child possessed by the Devil ‘cos we’re all really evol anyway” is pretty evident. Message hasn’t changed one little bit.
Oh, gee, Sparkle, that was a gooey-yucky video!
“Indeed Maggie – I’ve just watched some trailers for this film (how can you tell I’m supposed to be starting an essay?) and the “woman/child possessed by the Devil ‘cos we’re all really evol anyway” is pretty evident. Message hasn’t changed one little bit.”
I usually think of The Exorcist as “a good scare”.
I used to be (and still am?) a real fan of horror flicks. But I *do* admit that The Exorcist is very patriarchal (most movies are anyway). It’s basically a 70’s Christian horror flick that contains offensive language and a scene with a crucifix that is pornographic-like IMHO.
How’d you get ahold of that vid of moi?
I really like being a truly evol radfem.
“How’d you get ahold of that vid of moi?
I really like being a truly evol radfem”
Shit, was it you Stormy? No, you’re joking…
“woman/child possessed by the Devil ‘cos we’re all really evol anyway”
Yeah, I hate the “womyn are evol” thing anyway. That’s what motivated the witch-hunt and other major widespread crimes against women! *angry*
Like you Maggie I have researched the witch-hunts (mostly Scotland) intensively. You will have most probably seen this site but if not it’s a fascinating resource – I’ve found what I am more than certain is an ancestor of mine. Name, dates, place everything fits perfectly.
Link: http://www.arts.ed.ac.uk/witches/index.html
There’s an excellent data-base.
***SNIP***
Oh, Sparkle*Matrix. Thanks so much for that link. I’ve bookmarked it.
No, I didn’t know it actually. I know about the witches, who these women were and the magnitude of the crime against them from Dworkin’s first book Woman Hating. She wrote an excellent chapter on the witch-hunt and the misogyny of Christianity. Did you read it? I thought she explained the witch-hunt better than Wikipedia does.
No Maggie I haven’t read Woman Hating yet – but it’s on my Amazon wish list. Have you read Star Hawks chapter on the witch-hunts in Spiral Dance, that’s also well worth a read.
“Have you read Star Hawks chapter on the witch-hunts in Spiral Dance, that’s also well worth a read.”
No I haven’t but thanks for this recommendation. I took note of it. I’ll research it tomorrow.
Been on the Net for awhile. Need a rest now. I’m logging off.
Good luck with Johnny, Sparkle*Matrix (in case he comes back with his MRA beliefs – prepare the green puke).
In sisterhood,
Bye for now.
*vasecto-snip*
Edited by sparks.
*SNIP*
btw, heaven help him if any of you birth a son. poor little guy.
I can’t believe this discussion is still going on (and on…and on…and on…). Johnny must be fun troll.
*Oh dear – total snip*
Edited by sparks.
*snip-e-de-do-dahh*
Edited by sparks.
See top post CoolAunt.
Checkmate, sparkle.
I think that Johnny has fulfilled his MRA Troll duties admirably on this thread.
He brought the stupid in large doses.
He changed the subject to him and his stupid.
He repeated all the items on the MRA list of fraudulent beliefs at least three times.
He maintained the center of attention by claiming to be courteous while being insulting.
He presented his personal experience as a reality trump.
And of course, my favorite, the affirmative action is unfair because girls can’t do that stuff that we he-man woman haters can, routine.
As a former LEO, that always gives me a gigglesnort.
I have always been a sucker for a troll, but I think I have finally learned my lesson. To acknowlege their existance is to feed them. I hereby swear off feeding the trolls.
*SNIPed for pathological and unimaginative testeria*
Edited by whore.
*SNIPed for testeria*
Edited by sparks
‘SW, are you back yet, or are you having too much MRA fun?’
i’m sorry, i can’t talk to you any more – my new friends have shown me why it’s wrong to play with you as you will drain my man essence. i am a bit worried about how you will figure stuff out, but at least you will have the special parting words of st johnny: ‘SNIP’.
and as my gift to you i have commissioned e j thribb to write a poem:
so farewell then johnny.
you were not a christian or an mra.
just courteous.
if you had written this poem, there is every chance it would have been rather longer and have contained confused references to the bible in justification of original points of view.
‘you are stupid’
yes that was your catch phrase.
(with apologies to private eye)
Johnny was an angry guerrilla. He thinks he is right, and in some things he is. His heart may be even partly in the right place, maybe. But he came here to scream and accuse about the very things he is guilty of. Feminism? Talk about a strawman argument. I think the word “feminist” means little to nothing in the real world today. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to sign up to something that opposes it. This whole issue of considering gender to distribute opportunities is never, ever as simple as many people seem to approach it. But I digress.
As far as I can tell, all this is just about some sensationalistic comments a reporter made to a psychopath’s ex. I won’t look too much into it beyond that.
‘Johnny was an angry guerrilla.’ – so he should like the banana dance at any rate.
D’ya mean ‘gorilla’ Mr SP? (pedantry, not the sole preserve of MRAs). Yep gender is complicated, wouldn’t disagree there. But misogyny is fairly straightforward. And if feminism means nothing – why are people so afraid of the word? People aren’t usually shit scared of stuff with little significance.
I agree with thebewilderness (#146).
SP -To the uninitiated and not used to analysing and interpreting media influence it probably would not appear to be of any significance. Language’s codes and ‘dog whistles’ are important evidence that there are mechanisms of society which give a distinctive patterning or ‘structure’ to social beliefs and behaviour. This is why we point it out.
Oh, look, we’re talking about Johnny troll again
And there was I getting interested in the witch thing
Yup, lovin’ bewilderness at 146.
I really didn’t have anything constructive to say, just thought I’d prolong the thread for no reason. Gah! I’ve probably caught some horrible MRA disease. Must… disinfect… now…
“”"”"”"But misogyny is fairly straightforward. And if feminism means nothing – why are people so afraid of the word? People aren’t usually shit scared of stuff with little significance.”"”"”"”
Misogyny might be straight forward, but imo, it’s also empowered by acknowledging any nutty opinion that is suspect. And I don’t know if people are afraid of the word feminism, I know I’m not. I just know know for a fact that, at least in my neighborhood, it doesn’t have much meaning and different people’s definition of it sometimes doesn’t even match. Distant politics aside, when it comes to the realm of real life people, I see plenty of females in my life perfectly comfortable with what seems like the opposite of “feminism” who really don’t look like they need any help. So why should I be concerned when, from my perspective, there’s plenty of other issues that need attention? I figure I do my part by not personally contributing negatively to the supposed goals of “feminism”.
“”"”"”"SP -To the uninitiated and not used to analysing and interpreting media influence it probably would not appear to be of any significance. Language’s codes and ‘dog whistles’ are important evidence that there are mechanisms of society which give a distinctive patterning or ‘structure’ to social beliefs and behaviour. This is why we point it out.”"”"”"”
We’ll have to agree to disagree. I won’t see it for more than attention seeking on the part of a news outlet in this case, because it’s not like logically these have anything to gain other than the usual business.
Thanks for the unique insight Mr SP. But if you’re that unbothered by/uninterested in feminism why bother commeting on a feminist blog? It would be like me commenting on a blog about cricket.
Is MrSP an FOJ*?
Thanks for the tipoff polly, I might just swing by a football blog and start making random comments; that sound like something, but have absolutely no substance.
*Friend of Johnny’s
It doesn’t affect me so why should I bother. Of course, there are millions of women who do not live in affluence, many of whom live in abject fear and poverty who I don’t see but that doesn’t make them invisible. There are also women who are quite happy with the status quo – however there are countless women who are not. Also using the “plenty of other issues that need attention” is a stock standard MRA verse to say STFU…, which links into the social conditioning of females to put others before our selves.
Yes, and we disagree about the power of the media.
No, not friend of Johnny, he would say enemy. His wide spread advertising of this trolling ‘achievement’ is what called my attention here, that is all.
So that is why I previously posted off-topic, because it was replied to. You don’t have to worry about hearing another peep. Have a lovely one!
Cheers Mr SP. If anyone is still interested a cursory glance at google reveals that ‘Dick Masterson’ onlie begetter of menzarebetterthanwimmin is actually one Dax Herrera (crazee name, crazee guy). A computer geek (SEO) turned ‘comedian’ and ‘novelist’. Word on the streets is that ‘menarebetterthanwomen’ is simply a ‘viral marketing’ device for the book ‘men are better than women’, which is heavily advertised on the site. I think Johnny is for real though.
Which gives me an idea…………
De De DERRRRR!!!!!
On cue…
NB here is a summary (thank you Amazon, but I’m still not shopping with you because of the rapist doll) of the plot of Mr Herrera’s previous book, “Edgar N Vective:paranormal detective” which mysteriously failed to be a bestseller. I also have to say that menzarebetterthanwimmin, while obviously a ’spoof’ when you read it is less than rib tickling IMNSHO. Still no doubt Mr Herrera thinks it will make his fortune. Free tip Dax: try something about a boy wizard?
Edgar Vective, a normal and normally apathetic auto-salvage mechanic, was living out his humdrum life in the rusted and dusted out town of Gloom and Doom, New Mexico. One day, near the very beginning of the book, Edgar accidentally electrocuted himself just a smidge over the edge of the grave. In doing so, he picked up a unique and predictable skill…He could see ghosts! Edgar, who so eloquently put it that, ‘nothing ever happens anywhere,’ spends the next several days chasing a pack of zombies who stole his car across the country with his new and annoying friend the Ghost of Sherlock Holmes. Along the way he finds love (or something like it), a zombie cowboy relic from the past who has learned as much in death as he had in life, and that having so much in common with Death himself is not as great as it sounds.
——————————————————————————–
Thank you polly, however I didn’t follow that synopsis.
Dick Masterson’s book MABTW is apparently:
“[my] manmazing mansterpiece”
Words written by Dick himself.
Lemurtime?
I revise the earlier FOJ, as Johnny is a mere follower.
It is now FOD (Friend of Dick).
Poor Johnny, downgraded.
Yes it’s not very grammatical, or indeed well structured, but then I imagine Dax/Dick wrote it himself. Don’t blame me anyway I nicked it from Amazon.
The ‘nothing ever happens anywhere’ bit does kind of remind me of Auden/Isherwood’s ‘Ascent of F6′ which was inflicted on me at O Level.
“Nothing that matters will ever happen
Nothing you’d want to put in a book
Nothing you’d want to tell to your friends
The old old story that never ends”.
The difference being of course, that Auden was an acclaimed writer as opposed to an opportunist hoping to get rich off misogyny. Well it’s worked for Jeremy Clarkson Dax, so who knows.
Did someone mention my most boring troll ever?
http://trollbuster.wordpress.com/2006/12/09/dick-masterson-dick-by-name-dick-by-nature/
Hi trollbuster – Gawd that was from Dec 2006. Yeah he tried to comment on here a couple of times…now we know it was purely an advertising front. Wonder if he’s best buds with PETA?
Dickieboy did the rounds on the radfem blogs.
It seems that his definition of ‘better’ didn’t include ’smarter’. Poor baby.
Dax Herrera? Well, if that’s true, he’s laughing at the troops of 12 y/o Johnnys at that forum harder than anyone. It also proves that “Dr. Phil” show is a whole lot of wholesome phoniness, since apparently he was a boring shock-guest. If he was really hoping to make a fortune selling his amateur shtick through a book, that forum full of loons isn’t going to help a single bit. I’ve seen funerals funnier than those boys. The main site “jokes” from Dax/Dick are a mild chuckle, but a book? I wouldn’t read it if it was free. But hey, the kids are pitching in for a “man-billboard”. That ought to be fun. Ok, sorry, just had to be a smartass, carry on.
Just google Dax Herrera Dick Masterson Mr SP and click on a few of the links – like I said a few minutes on google. Polly is a naturally suspicious type – who knows how to use a search engine.
I’ll leave you to break it to the boys…………
Oh and conspiracy theory no 907 – maybe it is also a plot to boost Dr Phil’s ratings……….no disagreement from me on that Mr SP he’s pants (that’s UK speak for rubbish).
‘I might just swing by a football blog and start making random comments’
that strikes me as the special kind of bored that is some way beyond pulling-my-own-eyes-out-to-see-what-happens bored.
whereas cricket…
Oh and Mr SP – rule no 1 of starting a cult. You try to recruit followers from those who feel isolated or excluded from other groups in society. That’s why when I was (obviously) a student in London I used to have loads of people coming up to tell me the good news about Jesus. They thought I was potentially friendless and away from home and likely to go and join a bunch of loons. After a few minutes of argument from me though about why they were theologically incorrect (I know my bible) they usually backed away hastily…
can i tell you the good news about cricket…?
No. And if you try I shall be forced to cite obscure passages of Leviticus.
And I will send you to menarebetterthanfrogs to be J’s personal mentor.
menarebetterthanfrogs
Stop diss’ing the frogs!
It’s not true stormy – they just think it.
i suppose i could play french cricket with them and we could see who is the best!
Simply, you are on thin ice.
Dangerously close to be sent over to the Dick Masterton School of Suckers. You may even have to buy his book if you keep this up.
May I remind you of the words “manmazing mansterpiece”.
That should make you behave.
polly styrene, not a very exciting cult, is it? I’m already bored of old Dax.
And I suggest you stop mentioning his alias and website, because it’s creating buzz for his book and he’ll make millions! Hahah…
cricket on ice! now there’s an idea, stormy.
‘manmazing masterpiece’ – what are they trying to do? – reclaim the language already owned by us males? the very phrase is like a bucket of shite.
i will never behave!
Not from the readers of this good blog I fear Mr SP. Anyway I keep doing it in the hope that Johnny is still reading, cos I know how upset he’ll be taht his hero deceived him and I’m mean like that.
Polly – not going in for doormat feminism people pleasing.
F.A.B.
You couldn’t wait to be the first to use it online, could you?
Well, both really!
Well I don’t know how to do superscript on a blog otherwise I would have put TM stormy in that special little writing. But yes Thunderbirds ARE go – or will be in about half an hour…..
Its official – this the longest thread evarr since the Pole Dancing Conflict in Aug. 2006.
http://sparklematrix.wordpress.com/2006/08/21/international-pole-dancing-day/
And that’s because I shut comments at 127.
Careful now sparks, or the other bloggers will be saying you’re oppressing them with longthread privilege.
OH NOES not the longthread privilege pissing contest!
Time for…
Sheesh (don’t ask, it means whatever you want it to mean and is my new trademark since we’ve been declared a drought region).
Jist adding to the mountainous thread to ensure my comp. won’t be able to load it next time. Does three over-loving kitties/cats fighting for my lap/shoulders make up for all the vids I can’t watch?
We was talking witches? I’ve often wondered about a weather exchange scheme, maybe the Earth disagrees but – seems tis rain could be shared out a bit more fairly.
Oops, forgot I wis a christian.
Sheesh, do we need any more than four months without rain to prove the effectiveness of prayers to the Patriarch?
That would be the cislongthread privilege?
cis?
By circuitous means, I have just been informed that I’m not actually a woman. Thanks Drakyn.
*jumps fence to MRA camp*
It could be translongthread privilege, who knows. Its FAB anyway.
But what IS a woman Sophie? Just trying to get your thread into the guinness book of records sparkle. Though you’ve got some way to go to beat this lot of course……
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/
But what IS a woman Sophie? Sorry sparks just trying to get the thread into the Guinness book of records…….
But what IS a woman Sophie?
Idunno.
All I know is that everyone says I am one and therefore yadda yadda.
And even though Drakyn says I’m not a woman (because a woman must self-identify as a woman (whatever that is), not simply be told by everyone around her that they is one), I still found the MRA camp gross and t’ey didn’t want me.
*climbs back on fence*
Twisty had a ginormous thread on what a wimmin was once. Didn’t make much sense to me.
F.A.B. but not a woman.
I’m going to build me a wider fence I think for all the ‘not-mans’ and ‘not-womans’.
Exactly – now here comes Polly’s simple definition.
“woman” a term applied to those adults who are deemed to be biologically female under the constructed patriarchal system of gender/sex binaries.
See you’ve got it right, Sophie – you don’t self identify as a woman, you are identified as one. Big difference. That’s why I try to avoid using the term, in arguments of this type, to avoid pointless semantic going round in circles.
But if you look in the OED ‘woman’ means a lot of things, including the reverse side of a coin (no shit).